DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 6 is canceled.
Claims 1, 3 are amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in PCT EP 2020074195 on 08/31/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the layers of the electrically conductive material on respective ones at least some of the absorption elements have different lengths in order to form dipoles of different lengths”. It is unclear what “respective ones” is referring to. The examiner has interpreted this limitation as “each of the one sides that are formed by an electrically conductive material have at least one different length in order to form dipoles of different lengths.”
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess (DE 4215954) in view of Fukuda (US 20110260904).
Regarding Claim 1, Hess teaches the following limitations:
An absorption device for absorbing electromagnetic radiation at least in a partial range within a frequency range from 500 MHz to 15 GHz, the absorption device comprising: (Hess – [pg. 5 para. 1] The invention relates to absorbers for electromagnetic table waves, especially to reduce reflection, in closed, shielded rooms consisting of spatial, with finely divided, conductive materials soaked foam bodies that are close together which is attached to the walls of the room to be shielded are. [pg. 5 para. 16 – pg. 6 para. 1] In the manufacture of such absorbent bodies Foam sheets corresponding to the processing of a ke gels or a pyramid can often be difficult be to get an exact tip, so that there due to interfering reflection at frequencies greater than 1 GHz NEN can occur. Electromagnetic wave absorber in closed and screened spaces - has pyramidal frame and filling constituted by plastic foam. However, in order to achieve an optimal damping characteristic Achieving up to 40 GHz can be of particular advantage be making these bodies in a different way.)
a housing which is at least partially transmissive to the electromagnetic radiation to be absorbed and has an inner receptacle space that contains a fill, which includes irregularly arranged absorption elements; and (Hess – [Fig. 1], [pg. 6 para. 14] pyramid-shaped absorber body 1 from a correspondingly folded foam sheet, [pg. 6 para. 15] impregnated with a dispersion containing conductive carbon black, metal oxides or a mixture of metal oxides and ceramic materials,)
PNG
media_image1.png
387
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the absorption elements each include a carrier body made of an electrically insulating material, on which a layer is applied externally at least on one side that is formed by an electrically conductive material, and (Hess – [Fig. 1], [pg. 6 para. 14], [pg. 6 para. 15] Hess does not explicitly teach least on one side that is formed by an electrically conductive material.)
the layers of the electrically conductive material on respective ones at least some of the absorption elements have different lengths in order to form dipoles of different lengths. (Hess – [Fig. 4], [pg. 7 para. 2] Hess does not explicitly teach “electrically conductive material that form dipoles of different lengths”.)
Hess does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fukuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
least on one side that is formed by an electrically conductive material… to form dipoles of different lengths. (Fukuda – [0034] consists of a divided conductive film (abbreviated as DCF, hereinafter) [0054] change of matching frequency fo and that of electromagnetic wave absorption are measured by changing each side's length `a` of the conductive films 11 and arrangement distance `b` of adjoining conductive films 11.)
PNG
media_image2.png
202
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the absorber sides of Hess with the conductive sides of Fukuda in order to reduce thickness and weight (Fukuda – [0010]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hess further teaches:
wherein longitudinal extensions of the electrically conductive layers of the absorption elements are in a range from 2 cm to 25 cm. (Hess – [Fig. 4], [pg. 6 para. 15] The foam sheet used, which is cut according to FIG. 2, has a thickness of about 20 mm and is impregnated with a dispersion containing conductive carbon black, metal oxides or a mixture of metal oxides and ceramic materials, [pg. 7 para. 2] This absorber body 20 is constructed according to the
exemplary embodiment shown, for example from 5 foam sheets 21 to 25, It would be obvious to use the lengths proposed in Fig. 4 with the cubes used in Fig. 1 in order to “Hess – [pg. 7 para. 2] provide optimal attenuation characteristics up to 40 GHz.)
PNG
media_image3.png
453
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hess does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fukuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
electrically conductive layers (Fukuda – [0034] consists of a divided conductive film)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the absorber of Hess with the conductive sides of Fukuda in order to reduce thickness and weight (Fukuda – [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hess further teaches:
wherein a thickness of the electrically conductive layer of a respective one of the absorption elements is less than 1. (See 112(b) section.)
Hess does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fukuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
electrically conductive layers (Fukuda – [0034] consists of a divided conductive film)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the absorber of Hess with the conductive sides of Fukuda in order to reduce thickness and weight (Fukuda – [0010]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hess further teaches:
wherein the electrically conductive layer of a respective one of the absorption elements is formed by an electrically conductive coating of the carrier body. (Hess – [Fig. 4], [pg. 6 para. 15] may for example consist of cuboids or cubes with an edge length of about 5 to 10 mm. If these Schaumstoffab sections 10 have layers of different loading with conductive particles, special frequency-dependent damping properties can be achieved.)
Hess does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fukuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
electrically conductive layers (Fukuda – [0034] consists of a divided conductive film)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the absorber of Hess with the conductive sides of Fukuda in order to reduce thickness and weight (Fukuda – [0010]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hess further teaches:
wherein at least one lateral surface of the absorption elements is electrically insulating. (Hess – [Fig. 4], [pg. 7 para. 2])
Regarding Claim 7, Hess further teaches:
wherein the fill includes absorption elements having different lengths. (Hess – [Fig. 4], [pg. 7 para. 2])
Regarding Claim 8, Hess further teaches:
wherein a specific resistance of the electrically conductive layer of a respective one of the absorption elements is in a range from 0.1 to 1000 Q.mm2/m. (See 112(b) section)
Regarding Claim 9, Hess further teaches:
wherein the absorption elements have a cuboid shape. (Hess – [pg. 6 para. 15])
Regarding Claim 10, Hess further teaches:
wherein the absorption device is a wall, ceiling, or floor element. (Hess – [pg. 5 para. 4] To this end the interior wall and ceiling surfaces and partially also the floor area with suitable absorbers dresses.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding Claims 3, 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding Claims 3, 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-6, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding Claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Hess and Fukuda does not teach the amended Claim 1. The applicant argues that “Fukuda fails to suggest that such an absorber sheet is adapted to be cut into pieces for using as absorption elements which are irregularly arranged as fill and a housing for providing an absorption device.” The examiner points out that the applicant is misinterpreting the intention of the combination. Hess already teaches cuboids… sections 10 have layers of different loading with conductive particles, special frequency-dependent damping properties can be achieved (Hess [pg. 6 para. 15]) implying that the layers are already electrically conductive but not restricted to the sides. Fukuda provides a teaching to show that sides with different lengths perform different electromagnetic wave absorption. More detail has been added to the Office Action to improve the clarity of the combination to include a table with various side lengths and corresponding frequency absorptions. Fig. 4 and the associated citations of Hess further teach different thickness lengths that achieve “optimal attenuation characteristic up to 40 GHz” and it is this aspect of the embodiment that is being cited, not the structure as a whole.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 07/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on Claim 1. The examiner disagrees due to the above-mentioned rejections.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Cui (US 20190246528) describes an electromagnetic shielding film with a layer of conductive paste.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645