Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, replace “a dielectric” with –the dielectric--.
Claim 4, line 2, replace “a” with –the--.
Claim 5, line 2, replace “a dielectric” with –the dielectric--.
Claim 6, line 2, replace “a dielectric” with –the dielectric--.
Claim 7, line 2, replace “a dielectric” with –the dielectric--.
Claim 9, line 6, replace, “an” with –the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaguchi et al. (JP H04-311020 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi et al. disclose an electrolyte solution of aluminum electrolytic capacitor [0001], comprising:
an electrolyte [0016]-[0017];
an organic solvent [0015]; and
a functional additive [0012], comprising a metal oxide (TiO2 – Table 1 – sample 5) having a dielectric constant ≥ 7 (titanium oxide ~80-100 – from vapor-phase oxidation – [0021]) ,
wherein a weight percentage of the metal oxide having a dielectric constant ≥7 is up to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution ([0018], 2.0 % - Table 1 – sample 5).
Regarding claim 2, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the metal oxide is titanium dioxide ([0012], Table 1 – sample 5).
Regarding claim 3, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the dielectric constant is between 7 and 6000 (~80-100 – from vapor-phase oxidation – [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the weight percentage of the functional additive is 2.0 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution (Table 1 – sample 5, [0018]).
Regarding claims 5-7, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the weight percentage of the metal oxide having a dielectric constant ≥7 (titanium dioxide ~80-100 – from vapor-phase oxidation – [0021]) 2 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution (table 1 – sample 5, [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the organic solvent comprises y-butyrolactone (table 1, sample 5 -
PNG
media_image1.png
21
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sakaguchi et al. (JP H04-311020 A).
Regarding claim 10, Sakaguchi et al. disclose an aluminum electrolytic capacitor [0001], comprising:
a capacitor element, comprising:
an anode foil (inherent to an aluminum electrolytic capacitor);
a cathode foil (inherent to an aluminum electrolytic capacitor); and
a separator (inherent to an aluminum electrolytic capacitor), interposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil; and
an electrolyte solution of aluminum electrolytic capacitor of claim 1, wherein the capacitor element is impregnated with the electrolyte solution [0001].
Sakaguchi et al. do not specifically state that the aluminum electrolytic capacitor comprises a capacitor element that includes an anode foil; a cathode foil; and a separator that is interposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil.
An aluminium electrolytic capacitor comprising an anode foil, cathode foil, and a separator that is disposed between the anode foil and cathode foil is well known in the aluminum electrolytic capacitor art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the aluminum electrolytic capacitor of Sakaguchi et al. so that it comprises an anode foil, a cathode foil, and a separator that is disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil, since such a modification would form an aluminum electrolytic capacitor with a driving electrolyte having a high spark generation voltage that does not lower specific conductivity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (JP H04-311020 A).
Regarding claim 8, Sakaguchi et al. disclose the electrolyte comprises ammonium salts [0016], [0017].
Sakaguchi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the ammonium electrolyte is at least one selected from the group consisting of ammonium azelate, ammonium adipate, ammonium sebacate, ammonium dodecanedioate, C6-C8 ammonium dicarboxylate with side chain, ammonium borate, or a combination thereof.
Ammonium azelate, ammonium adipate, ammonium sebacate, ammonium dodecanedioate, C6-C8 ammonium dicarboxylate with side chain, and ammonium borate are well known electrolytes used in the aluminum electrolytic capacitor art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the electrolyte of Sakaguchi et al. using one of ammonium azelate, ammonium adipate, ammonium sebacate, ammonium dodecanedioate, C6-C8 ammonium dicarboxylate with side chain, and ammonium borate since, electrolyte materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost and electrochemical properties.
it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 4,110,817) in view of Itou et al. (JP S60-12717 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-10, Ross et al. disclose an aluminum electrolytic capacitor (abstract) comprising:
an electrolyte comprising ammonium adipate (Example IV);
an organic solvent comprising ethylene glycol (Example IV).
Ross et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrolyte solution comprising a functional additive, comprising a metal oxide having a dielectric constant ≥ 7, wherein a weight percentage of the metal oxide having a dielectric constant ≥7 is up to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Itou et al. disclose an electrolyte for use in an electrolytic capacitor, wherein the electrolyte comprises a functional additive that includes a metal oxide having a dielectric constant ≥ 7 (Al2O3, barium titanate, ZrO2 – Detailed Description of the Invention),
wherein a weight percentage of the metal oxide having the dielectric constant ≥7 is up to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (Detailed Description of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrolyte of Ross et al. by adding up to 3 wt% of the metal oxide as taught by Itou et al., since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor having improved vibrational properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H0257328 – B2 – aluminum electrolytic capacitor having anode and cathode foils, and a separator disposed between the foils. The electrolyte comprises a bismuth oxide ceramic material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571)272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
