DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-29, 33-37, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haffelner et al. (DE 102016112518 A1, hereinafter Haffelner) in view of Basrur et al. (DE 102014117014 A1, hereinafter Basrur).
As to claim 23, Haffelner teaches a dummy vehicle (fig. 7) for performing tests for driver assistance systems, the dummy vehicle comprising:
a vehicle element 110, 120, 130, 140 reproducing a part of a vehicle to be simulated, wherein the vehicle element forms a shell structure (¶81; alternatively, the vehicle element can be considered to be the parts of panels 110, 120, 130, 140 not including window portions 702 – fig. 7 and ¶119),
wherein the shell structure comprises an outer layer 503 (see ¶114 and fig. 5; additionally or alternatively, it is noted that ¶114 teaches that there may be a plurality of layer 503) and an inner layer 501 (¶111 and fig. 5),
wherein the outer layer 503 is arranged further outwardly in the shell structure than the inner layer 501, wherein the inner layer 501 is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (¶41-43, ¶111 and fig. 5 teach that the layer 501 is made of polyurethane foam; evidentiary reference “Protecting Signal Strength Using Polyurethane Foam,” teaches in the first paragraph and in the section titled “Why Polyurethane Forms are Optimal for Constructing Effective Barriers” that polyurethane foam is transparent to radar; the driver assistance system is not positively recited, meaning that the dummy vehicle is capable of use with a driver assistance system using sensor signals in the form of radar, which passes through polyurethane),
wherein the inner layer 501 is self-supporting (¶24 teaches “the outer panels are designed in such a way that each panel is self-supporting. In particular, the outer panels…are designed to be so rigid that, in their mutual interconnection, they form the self-supporting unit, i.e., the dummy vehicle.”; furthermore, ¶111 teaches that layer 501 is elastically deformable; ¶27-31 define “elastically deformable” as meaning “can change its shape under the influence of an impact force and returns to its original shape without damage when the impact force is removed”) and dimensionally stable (¶16 and ¶105; additionally, see ¶24, ¶27-31 and ¶111, which are discussed above),
wherein the outer layer 503 is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (¶113-114 teaches that layer 503 comprises a layer that reflects radar and infrared light; accordingly, the dummy vehicle of Heffelner is capable of use with a driver assistance system that uses radar, which reflects off of layer 503),
wherein the inner layer 501 has a thickness between 0.5 cm and 30 cm (¶42 of Haffelner teaches that the foam layer 501 is 20 mm to 100 mm, which is 2 cm to 10 cm).
Heffelner does not teach wherein the layer 501 is an outer layer,
wherein the other layer 503 is an inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system, wherein the inner layer is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system,
wherein the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer.
Basrur teaches a dummy vehicle for performing tests for driver assistance systems, the dummy vehicle comprising:
a vehicle element 1 reproducing a part of a vehicle to be simulated (fig. 1; ¶27),
wherein the vehicle element forms a shell structure (¶23 and ¶32 teach that the vehicle element 1 is an inflatable hollow shell),
wherein the shell structure comprises an outer layer C (fig. 4) and an inner layer D (¶23 teaches that the shell structure comprises a material designated as “40T” formed by an inner layer D of aluminum and an outer layer C of LDPE, which is low density polyethylene; also see fig. 4 and ¶37),
wherein the outer layer is dimensionally stable (¶24 teaches that the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car, and ¶20 teaches that “the more the body is inflated, the more stability it can gain”; accordingly, the outer layer of Basrur’s shell structure is substantially dimensionally stable since the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car and is more inflated for more stability) and arranged further outwardly in the shell structure than the inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (the driver assistance system is not positively recited as part of the claimed dummy vehicle; therefore, the dummy vehicle is capable of use with an assistance system that uses radar; ¶11 teaches that the aluminum coating D inside of the outer layer reflects radar waves, meaning the radar waves pass through the outer layer in order to be reflected by the inner layer; additionally, ¶23 and ¶37 teach that the outer layer is LDPE, or low-density polyethylene),
wherein the inner layer is sensor-sensitive to sensor signals (e.g. radar waves) from sensors of the driver assistance system (the inner layer D is aluminum, which reflects radar waves - ¶11; it is additionally noted that ¶12-13 teach an embodiment in which aluminum foil layer A is optional and not applied, resulting in inner layer D being the only metallic layer);
wherein the thickness 165 µm (¶37) of the outer layer C and the thickness 12 µm (¶37) of the inner layer D are such that the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer (fig. 4 shows that the outer and inner layers C-D are in direct contact; therefore, the distance between the inner surface of the inner layer and the outer surface of the outer layer is the sum of the thicknesses of the layers, which is 177 µm, or 0.177 mm, which is a very short distance; since the dummy vehicle of Basrur is configured to be significantly larger than a conventional car, as taught by ¶24, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer, because the surface areas are very large while the distance between them is very small).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Heffelner such that the radar-reflective layer is inside of the radar-non-reflective layer as taught by Basrur since such a modification would be mere reversal of parts for the predictable result that testing for a driver assistance system is still successfully carried out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Heffelner as modified such that the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car, as taught by Basrur, for the benefit of being able to test large objects when the testing of large objects is important (¶24, Basrur).
Haffelner as modified still does not explicitly teach wherein the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant specification, the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8 discloses
“It has been found that due to the low resolution of the radar sensors in vehicle assistance systems, the area of the inner surface of the inner layer may be 70% of the area of the outer surface of the outer layer, with the radar sensors still providing a correct identification of the vehicle element as a corresponding part of the isolating vehicle. Thus, it is not necessary to increase the external dimensions of the vehicle element relative to the part of the vehicle to be simulated to thereby obtain an identical surface area to the external surface of the part. In other words, in the embodiments described above, the external dimensions of the vehicle element are maintained without causing a mismeasurement of the driver assistance systems due to the reduced area of the radar-reflective inner layer.”
In the case of Haffelner as modified, the dummy vehicle was modified to be significantly larger than a conventional car (¶24, Basrur) which contributes to proper detection measurements since larger objects are easier to detect by radar. Furthermore, the claimed invention is a dummy, per se, and does not include driver assistance systems (i.e., the disclosed dummy simply reflects radar). Similarly, the modified Haffelner’s dummy reflects radar. Additionally, prior art is presumed to be operable/enabling (MPEP 2121(I)), which further supports that the modified Haffelner’s dummy successfully reflects radar and is successfully detectable by radar. Accordingly, there is no evidence of record to show that a claimed device having the recited proportions/dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. they both reflect radar; additionally or alternatively, the modified Haffelner’s dummy and the claimed dummy with the recited dimensions both successfully reflect radar and are successfully detectable by radar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Haffelner as modified such that the thickness of the outer layer and the thickness of the inner layer are such that the area of the inner surface is at least 70% of the outer surface, since such a modification would be a mere change in dimensions/proportions for the predictable result that the dummy still successfully reflects radar energy.
Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the layer 501 (Haffelner) is an outer layer,
wherein the layer 503 (Haffelner) is an inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system, wherein the inner layer is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system.
As to claim 24, Haffelner teaches wherein the shell structure forms a hollow body having an internal volume (¶117 teaches that fig. 7 shows the device of fig. 1 with a roof panel 601 that encloses the hollow space shown in fig. 1).
As to claim 26, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 503 (Haffelner) comprises a thermally reflective material (¶113 - Haffelner).
As to claim 27, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 503 (Haffelner) is heatable (¶113 of Haffelner teaches wherein layer 503 is made of metal, which can be heated).
As to claim 28, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 503 (Haffelner) comprises a radar-reflective material (¶113-114 of Haffelner).
As to claim 29, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the outer layer 501 (Haffelner) consists of a foam material (in Haffelner, ¶111 and fig. 5 teach that the layer 501 is made of polyurethane foam).
As to claim 33, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 503 (Haffelner) is electrically conductive (¶113-114 of Haffelner).
As to claim 34, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 503 (Haffelner) forms a metallic layer (¶113-114 of Haffelner).
As to claim 35, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the outer layer 501 (Haffelner) is formed of polyurethane (¶43 of Haffelner).
As to claim 36, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein an optical layer is applied to the outer layer (the optical layer is not positively recited and is considered to be directed to an intended use of the claimed device; the modified Haffelner’s outer layer is capable of having an optical layer applied onto it).
As to claim 37, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein an optical layer (i.e. “the” optical layer) consists of polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane (the modified Haffelner’s outer layer is capable of having an optical layer of polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane applied onto it).
As to claim 39, Haffelner teaches a further vehicle element 702 (¶119) which is free of a radar-reflective layer 703 (¶120; i.e. vehicle element 702 lacks layer 703).
As to claim 40, Haffelner teaches wherein the further vehicle element 702 reproduces a window area of a further part of the vehicle to be simulated (¶119).
As to claim 41, Haffelner teaches wherein the vehicle element and the further vehicle element 702 are integrally formed (fig. 7).
As to claim 42, Haffelner teaches wherein the further vehicle element 702 has a further shell structure which, together with the shell structure of the vehicle element, forms the hollow body (see ¶81 and ¶119, which teach that element 702 is part of one or more panels 110, 120, 130, 140 forming the shell of the dummy vehicle; accordingly, the further vehicle element 702 has a further shell structure which, together with the shell structure of the vehicle element, forms the hollow body).
Claim(s) 23 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haffelner et al. (DE 102016112518 A1, hereinafter Haffelner) in view of Basrur et al. under a second interpretation (DE 102014117014 A1, hereinafter Basrur2).
Note that Basrur2 differs from Basrur with respect how the claimed inner layer is taught by the prior art combination.
As to claim 23, Haffelner teaches a dummy vehicle (fig. 7) for performing tests for driver assistance systems, the dummy vehicle comprising:
a vehicle element 110, 120, 130, 140 reproducing a part of a vehicle to be simulated, wherein the vehicle element forms a shell structure (¶81; alternatively, the vehicle element can be considered to be the parts of panels 110, 120, 130, 140 not including window portions 702 – fig. 7 and ¶119),
wherein the shell structure comprises an outer layer 503 (see ¶113-114 and fig. 5, which teach an embodiment in which layer 503 comprises an infrared reflecting layer and/or a radar reflecting layer in the form of metal fabric) and an inner layer 501 (¶111 and fig. 5),
wherein the outer layer 503 is arranged further outwardly in the shell structure than the inner layer 501, wherein the inner layer 501 is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (¶41-43, ¶111 and fig. 5 teach that the layer 501 is made of polyurethane foam; evidentiary reference “Protecting Signal Strength Using Polyurethane Foam,” teaches in the first paragraph and in the section titled “Why Polyurethane Forms are Optimal for Constructing Effective Barriers” that polyurethane foam is transparent to radar; the driver assistance system is not positively recited, meaning that the dummy vehicle is capable of use with a driver assistance system using sensor signals in the form of radar, which passes through polyurethane),
wherein the inner layer 501 is self-supporting (¶24 teaches “the outer panels are designed in such a way that each panel is self-supporting. In particular, the outer panels…are designed to be so rigid that, in their mutual interconnection, they form the self-supporting unit, i.e., the dummy vehicle.”; furthermore, ¶111 teaches that layer 501 is elastically deformable, and ¶27-31 define “elastically deformable” as meaning “can change its shape under the influence of an impact force and returns to its original shape without damage when the impact force is removed”) and dimensionally stable (¶16 and ¶105; additionally, see ¶24, ¶27-31 and ¶111, which are discussed above),
wherein the outer layer 503 is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (¶113-114 teaches that layer 503 comprises a layer that reflects infrared light and/or a layer that reflects radar; accordingly, the dummy vehicle of Heffelner is capable of use with a driver assistance system that uses infrared light and/or radar, which reflect off of layer 503),
wherein the inner layer 501 has a thickness between 0.5 cm and 30 cm (¶42 of Haffelner teaches that the foam layer 501 is 20 mm to 100 mm, which is 2 cm to 10 cm).
Haffelner does not teach wherein the layer 501 is an outer layer,
wherein the other layer 503 is an inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system, wherein the inner layer is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system,
wherein the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer.
Basrur2 teaches a dummy vehicle for performing tests for driver assistance systems, the dummy vehicle comprising:
a vehicle element 1 reproducing a part of a vehicle to be simulated (fig. 1; ¶27),
wherein the vehicle element forms a shell structure (¶23 and ¶32 teach that the vehicle element 1 is an inflatable hollow shell),
wherein the shell structure comprises a layer C (fig. 4) and a radar-reflecting foil layer A that is used instead of an initial radar-reflecting aluminum layer D - ¶11-13),
wherein the layer C is dimensionally stable (¶24 teaches that the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car, and ¶20 teaches that “the more the body is inflated, the more stability it can gain”; accordingly, the outer layer of Basrur2’s shell structure is substantially dimensionally stable since the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car and is more inflated for more stability),
wherein the foil layer A is sensor-sensitive to sensor signals (e.g. radar waves) from sensors of the driver assistance system (¶12-14),
wherein the thickness of the foil layer A is 14 µm (¶37) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the radar-reflecting layer of Haffelner as modified (i.e. metal fabric layer in ¶47-48 of Haffelner) with an aluminum foil layer as taught by Basrur2 since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one radar reflecting layer for another for the predictable result that the dummy is still successfully detectable by radar (additionally or alternatively, the aluminum foil layer is light weight – see ¶15 and ¶37-38 of Basrur2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Haffelner as modified such that the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car, as taught by Basrur2, for the benefit of being able to test large objects when the testing of large objects is important (¶24, Basrur2).
Basrur2 teaches an alternative embodiment in which aluminum foil layer A is optional and not applied, resulting in inner layer D being the only metallic layer (see ¶12-13), and teaches
a dummy vehicle for performing tests for driver assistance systems, the dummy vehicle comprising:
a vehicle element 1 reproducing a part of a vehicle to be simulated (fig. 1; ¶27),
wherein the vehicle element forms a shell structure (¶23 and ¶32 teach that the vehicle element 1 is an inflatable hollow shell),
wherein the shell structure comprises an outer layer C (fig. 4) and an inner layer D (¶23 teaches that the shell structure comprises a material designated as “40T” formed by an inner layer D of aluminum and an outer layer C of LDPE, which is low density polyethylene; also see fig. 4 and ¶37),
wherein the outer layer is dimensionally stable (¶24 teaches that the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car, and ¶20 teaches that “the more the body is inflated, the more stability it can gain”; accordingly, the outer layer of Basrur’s shell structure is substantially dimensionally stable since the dummy vehicle is significantly larger than a conventional car and is more inflated for more stability) and arranged further outwardly in the shell structure than the inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system (the driver assistance system is not positively recited as part of the claimed dummy vehicle; therefore, the dummy vehicle is capable of use with an assistance system that uses radar; ¶11 teaches that the aluminum coating D inside of the outer layer reflects radar waves, meaning the radar waves pass through the outer layer in order to be reflected by the inner layer; additionally, ¶23 and ¶37 teach that the outer layer is LDPE, or low-density polyethylene),
wherein the inner layer is sensor-sensitive to sensor signals (e.g. radar waves) from sensors of the driver assistance system (the inner layer D is aluminum, which reflects radar waves - ¶11; ¶12-13 teach that aluminum foil layer A is optional and not applied, resulting in inner layer D being the only metallic layer);
wherein the thickness 165 µm (¶37) of the outer layer C and the thickness 12 µm (¶37) of the inner layer D are such that the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer (fig. 4 shows that the outer and inner layers C-D are in direct contact; therefore, the distance between the inner surface of the inner layer and the outer surface of the outer layer is the sum of the thicknesses of the layers, which is 177 µm, or 0.177 mm, which is a very short distance; since the dummy vehicle of Basrur is configured to be significantly larger than a conventional car, as taught by ¶24, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer, because the surface areas are very large while the distance between them is very small).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Haffelner as modified such that the radar-reflective layer is inside of the radar-non-reflective layer as taught by the alternative embodiment of Basrur2 since such a modification would be mere reversal of parts for the predictable result that testing for a driver assistance system is still successfully carried out.
Haffelner as modified still does not explicitly teach wherein the surface area of the inner surface of the inner layer is at least 70% of the surface are of the outer surface of the outer layer.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant specification, the paragraph bridging pgs. 7-8 discloses
“It has been found that due to the low resolution of the radar sensors in vehicle assistance systems, the area of the inner surface of the inner layer may be 70% of the area of the outer surface of the outer layer, with the radar sensors still providing a correct identification of the vehicle element as a corresponding part of the isolating vehicle. Thus, it is not necessary to increase the external dimensions of the vehicle element relative to the part of the vehicle to be simulated to thereby obtain an identical surface area to the external surface of the part. In other words, in the embodiments described above, the external dimensions of the vehicle element are maintained without causing a mismeasurement of the driver assistance systems due to the reduced area of the radar-reflective inner layer.”
In the case of Haffelner as modified, the dummy vehicle was modified to be significantly larger than a conventional car (¶24, Basrur2) which contributes to proper detection measurements since larger objects are easier to detect by radar. Furthermore, the claimed invention is a dummy, per se, and does not include driver assistance systems (i.e., the disclosed dummy simply reflects radar). Similarly, the modified Haffelner’s dummy reflects radar. Additionally, prior art is presumed to be operable/enabling (MPEP 2121(I)), which further supports that the modified Haffelner’s dummy successfully reflects radar and is successfully detectable by radar. Accordingly, there is no evidence of record to show that a claimed device having the recited proportions/dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. they both reflect radar; additionally or alternatively, the modified Haffelner’s dummy and the claimed dummy with the recited dimensions both successfully reflect radar and are successfully detectable by radar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Haffelner as modified such that the thickness of the outer layer and the thickness of the inner layer are such that the area of the inner surface is at least 70% of the outer surface, since such a modification would be a mere change in dimensions/proportions for the predictable result that the dummy still successfully reflects radar energy.
Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the layer 501 (Haffelner) is an outer layer,
wherein the layer A (Basrur) is an inner layer,
wherein the outer layer is transparent to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system, wherein the inner layer is sensor sensitive to sensor signals from sensors of the driver assistance system.
As to claim 32, Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer is formed as a foil A (Basrur2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections in which Basrur is the primary reference have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that Haffelner does not teach an outer layer that is self-supporting and dimensionally stable. Applicant additionally argues that Haffelner does not teach an inner layer that is signal-sensitive and where the outer layer is dimensionally stable and signal transparent. Applicant then argues that Haffelner does not teach an outer layer that is between 0.5 cm and 30 cm in thickness.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Haffelner was modified such that the positions of layers 501, 503 are switched, in light of Basrur. Accordingly, the modified Haffelner teaches an outer layer 501 (Haffelner) that is self-supporting and (¶24 of Haffelner teaches “the outer panels are designed in such a way that each panel is self-supporting. In particular, the outer panels…are designed to be so rigid that, in their mutual interconnection, they form the self-supporting unit, i.e., the dummy vehicle.”; furthermore, ¶111 of Haffelner teaches that layer 501 is elastically deformable, and ¶27-31 of Haffelner define “elastically deformable” as meaning “can change its shape under the influence of an impact force and returns to its original shape without damage when the impact force is removed”) and dimensionally stable (in Haffelner, see ¶16 and ¶105; additionally, see ¶24, ¶27-31 and ¶111 of Haffelner, which are discussed above). The modified Hafflener teaches that inner layer 503 is signal-sensitive (¶113-114 of Haffelner teach that layer 503 comprises a layer that reflects radar and infrared light) and that outer layer 501 is signal transparent (in Haffelner, ¶41-43, ¶111 and fig. 5 teach that the layer 501 is made of polyurethane foam; evidentiary reference “Protecting Signal Strength Using Polyurethane Foam,” teaches in the first paragraph and in the section titled “Why Polyurethane Forms are Optimal for Constructing Effective Barriers” that polyurethane foam is transparent to radar). Haffelner as modified teaches wherein the inner layer 501 has a thickness between 0.5 cm and 30 cm (¶42 of Haffelner teaches that the foam layer 501 is 20 mm to 100 mm, which is 2 cm to 10 cm).
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Despite what a skilled person can learn from the disclosures of Hafel/ner and Basrur, the skilled person cannot achieve the entirety of the subject matter of claim 23, as amended, when starting from any combination of Hafellner and Basrur without being inventive for at least the reason that neither document when considered alone or in any combination fairly suggests anything whatsoever about an outer layer of a shell of a dummy element that is self-supporting and dimensionally stable and where an outer layer has a thickness between 0.5cm and 30cm.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive at least because the combination of Haffelner and Basrur teaches an outer layer of a shell of a dummy element that is self-supporting and dimensionally stable and where an outer layer has a thickness between 0.5cm and 30cm, as explained above.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Dependent claims 35, and 39-42 depend directly or indirectly on independent claim 23, as amended, and are allowable for at least the same reasons claim 23 is allowable. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 23, 24, 26-29, 32-34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Basrur is overcome and should be withdrawn.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all pending claims are properly rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853