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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/9/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract exceeds 150 words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 4-5, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves”. The instant specification is silent to the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves. The instant specification fails to describe how the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “a frequency-selective surface”. The instant specification is silent to a frequency-selective surface. The instant specification fails to describe how the pattern serves as a frequency-selective surface. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db”. The instant specification is silent to the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. The instant specification fails to describe how the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method”. The instant specification is silent to the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method. The instant specification fails to describe how the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db”. The instant specification is silent to in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. The instant specification fails to describe how in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the laser light activation in at least one pigment or metal-containing particle causes directly or indirectly by surface tension a reduction in its outer surface area by a factor of 10, preferably 20, further advantageously 30 and even more advantageously 60”. The instant specification is silent to a surface tension reduction in its outer surface area by a factor of 10, preferably 20, further advantageously 30 and even more advantageously 60. The instant specification fails to describe how the reduction in the outer surface area is reduced by a factor of 60. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. See MPEP § 2163.03 V.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the coating layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-18 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves”. The instant specification is silent to the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves. The instant specification fails to describe how the pattern increases the permeability or transmission property only for radar waves. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “a frequency-selective surface”. The instant specification is silent to a frequency-selective surface. The instant specification fails to describe how the pattern serves as a frequency-selective surface. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the lasered lines". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the slit radome pattern". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the originally thin platelet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation having a wavelength between 10600 nm (CO2 laser) and 266nm, and the claim also recites preferably between 1064 nm and 355nm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation the metallic portion in metallic form is a vacuum-metallized pigment, or has a vacuum-metallized core or layer, and the claim also recites preferably with a maximum thickness of the metallic core or layer of below 80 nm, preferably below 32 nm, more preferably below 27 nm, still more preferably below 25 nm, and most preferably between 8 nm and 17 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation by at least 6 dB, and the claim also recites preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation by at least 6 dB, and the claim also recites preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation by at least 6 dB, and the claim also recites preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation a metal or alloy with a relatively low melting point, and the claim also recites preferably tin, zinc, lead, silver, copper, or more preferably aluminum, indium, tin-indium alloy which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation reacts exothermically, and the claim also recites thermite reaction which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation by a factor of 10, and the claim also recites preferably 20, further advantageously 30 and even more advantageously 60 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db”. The instant specification is silent to the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. The instant specification fails to describe how the use of the method reduces the light wave reflectance or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method”. The instant specification is silent to the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method. The instant specification fails to describe how the radio or radar wave reflectance or reflection scattering parameter (S11) or albedo perpendicular to the pigment surface is reduced by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db by using the method. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db”. The instant specification is silent to in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. The instant specification fails to describe how in the practice of the method the radio wave transmission, radar wave or millimeter wave transmission, of the pigmented surface of the treated object and for at least one light wavelength in the IR, visible light or UV range is increased by at least 6 dB, preferably 10 db, further preferably 12 dB, and most preferably 20 db. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
The term “relatively low melting point” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low melting point” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is unclear which metal or alloys, aside from the examples, have a sufficiently low melting point to meet the claim language.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the laser light activation in at least one pigment or metal-containing particle causes directly or indirectly by surface tension a reduction in its outer surface area by a factor of 10, preferably 20, further advantageously 30 and even more advantageously 60”. The instant specification is silent to a surface tension reduction in its outer surface area by a factor of 10, preferably 20, further advantageously 30 and even more advantageously 60. The instant specification fails to describe how the reduction in the outer surface area is reduced by a factor of 60. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty"). See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches “a radome using a high-brightness paint, characterized in that it includes a substrate and a decorative layer formed on an upper surface of the substrate and exhibiting a metallic luster, the decorative layer is formed of a high-brightness paint” (paragraph [0023]). Kim teaches that “the decorative layer may be formed by a silk printing, pad printing, painting, dipping or spraying process” (paragraph [0024]). Kim teaches that “some areas of the layer of the luminance paint may be removed by chemical etching or laser etching” (which reads upon “a post-treatment method for increasing the transmission of radar waves in painted body parts, comprising the steps”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0026]). Kim teaches “a radome comprising a layer composed of a luminance paint, and more particularly, to a radio-transparent radome molded product positioned within a radar propagation path of an automobile” (which reads upon “providing a painted body part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Kim teaches that “the high-brightness paint is composed of a resin, a solvent, an additive, and 5 to 30 wt% of a metallic pigment” (which reads upon “containing metal effect pigments, interference metal effect pigments or metal-containing particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0023]). Kim teaches “a liquid paint containing metal powder” (which reads upon “having at least in part a thin coherent metallic portion in metallic form”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0062]). Kim teaches that “some areas of the layer of the high-brightness paint may be removed by chemical etching or laser etching” (which reads upon “providing a laser light, characterized in that the laser light is activated to trigger at least a melting of the metallic portion in metallic form of the pigments or particles, as a result of which the shape factor of the pigments or particles changes and thereby increases the transmission of radar waves”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0066]). Kim teaches that “the radome (4) of the present invention may further include a protective coating layer (50) formed on the upper surface of the decorative layer (40)” (which reads upon “coating”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0078]). Kim teaches that “FIG. 4 is a cross-sectional view of a radome including a removal section and a mask layer according to one embodiment of the present invention” (which reads upon “without destroying the coating layer and/or impairing the optical properties of the coating”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046] and FIG. 4; coating 50 is intact). Kim teaches that “referring to Fig. 5, radio waves (L1) irradiated from the radar (100) pass through a radome (4) formed on the front grill and are radiated toward the front of the vehicle, and radio waves (L2) reflected by an object in front of the vehicle pass through the radome (4) and return to the radar (100)” (which reads upon “without destroying the coating layer and/or impairing the optical properties of the coating”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kim teaches that “the mask layer can be formed by forming an opaque layer over the entire upper surface of the substrate and then removing a portion of the opaque layer” (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kim teaches that “the above decorative layer (40) may be formed to include a removal portion (41) that removes a portion of the layer of high-brightness paint after forming a layer of high-brightness paint on the entire upper surface of the substrate (10)” (paragraph [0066]). Kim teaches that “by forming a removal portion (41) on the decorative layer (40) as described above or forming a mask layer (20) under the decorative layer (40), the decorative layer (40) that exhibits a metallic luster when the radome (4) is viewed from the outside is formed so that the radome (4) has a sense of unity with the surroundings of the radome (4), such as the front grill or emblem” (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above. Kim teaches that “radio waves (L1) irradiated from the radar (100) pass through a radome (4) formed on the front grill and are radiated toward the front of the vehicle, and radio waves (L2) reflected by an object in front of the vehicle pass through the radome (4) and return to the radar (100)” (paragraph [0082]). Kim teaches that “the above-mentioned reflectance paint is a liquid paint containing metal powder, and is a paint that can form a decorative layer (40) that has high reflectivity and metallic luster while not interfering with the transmission and reception of radio waves” (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 2 as stated above. Kim teaches that “radio waves (L1) irradiated from the radar (100) pass through a radome (4) formed on the front grill and are radiated toward the front of the vehicle, and radio waves (L2) reflected by an object in front of the vehicle pass through the radome (4) and return to the radar (100)” (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kim teaches that “radio waves (L1) irradiated from the radar (100) pass through a radome (4) formed on the front grill and are radiated toward the front of the vehicle, and radio waves (L2) reflected by an object in front of the vehicle pass through the radome (4) and return to the radar (100)” (paragraph [0082]). Kim teaches that “the radio waves irradiated from the antenna of the radar (100) are radiated forward through the front grill (101) or the emblem (102), and are reflected by objects such as the front vehicle or the front obstacle, so that the reflected light passes through the front grill (101) or the emblem (102) and returns to the radar (100) and that in a car equipped with a radar (100), it is preferable to use a material or paint that has low radio wave transmission loss and can provide a desired appearance for a radome such as a front grill (100) or emblem (102), which is a member installed in front of the antenna of the radar (100) and covers the antenna” (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kim teaches that “the metallic pigment may include at least one element selected from the group consisting of germanium (Ge), gold (Au), silver (Ag), boron (B), aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), indium (In), tin (Sn), and thallium (Tl)” (paragraph [0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the method of claim 7 as stated above. Kim teaches that “depending on the mounting location of the antenna, there are cases where the antenna may be intended to be invisible” (paragraph [0003]). Kim teaches that “the radar, which measures the distance to obstacles in front or the distance between vehicles in front, must be positioned in the center of the front of the vehicle to function properly, so the antenna is mounted behind the front grille of the vehicle, and that from a design perspective, it is desirable to make the antenna as invisible to the outside as possible” (paragraph [0003]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific thickness of the lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to ensure the thickness of the lines is very small, thus making the lines as invisible to the outside as possible, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babler et al. (US 5075195 A).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 18, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above.
Kim is silent regarding the size/shape of the powder and the frequency of the laser. Specifically, Kim is silent regarding that the thin coherent metallic portion in metallic form of the pigments is sufficiently thin to be partially transparent to the light of a laser used for the method, the laser having a wavelength between 10600 nm (CO2 laser) and 266nm (quadrupled frequency of an Nd-Yag laser), preferably between 1064 nm and 355nm, and wherein the metallic portion is so thin that it is penetrated by at least 0.2% of the laser light at least one wavelength in the said wavelength range.
Babler is similarly concerned with a method of laser marking plastics objects (abstract). Babler teaches that “the object to be marked contains a radiation-sensitive additive which effects a change in the light reflectance and is subjected to a laser with pulsed light such that the laser beam is deflected through a mask or directed over the surface of the object to be marked, in conformity with the shape of the marking which is to be applied so as to form a visual effect marking at the areas of impact on said object without the surface of said object suffering damage which is visible to the eye” (abstract). Babler teaches that “the molybdenum disulfide is suitably molybdenum disulfide in flake or platelet form with a particle diameter size of less than 100 μm, most preferably 0.1 to 25 μm, and a thickness of up to 4 μm” (which reads upon “thin coherent metallic portion in metallic form of the pigments is sufficiently thin to be partially transparent to the light of a laser used for the method wherein the metallic portion is so thin that it is penetrated by at least 0.2% of the laser light at least one wavelength in the said wavelength range”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 63-67). Babler teaches that “energy-rich pulsed laser sources are used for marking the plastics objects suitable for use in the practice of this invention” (column 4, lines 66-68). Babler teaches “focusing said radiation energy such that an effect marking is produced at the areas of impact without the surface of the marked material being perceptibly damaged” (column 5, lines 4-6). Babler teaches that “such energy source are solid state pulsed lasers such as ruby lasers or frequency multiplied Nd:YAG lasers, pulsed lasers with booster such as pulsed dye lasers or Raman shifter, and also continuous wave lasers with pulse modifications (Q-switch, mode locker), for example on the basis of CW Nd:YAG lasers with frequency multiplier, or CW ion lasers (Ar, Kr), as well as pulsed metal vapour lasers” (column 5, lines 7-18). Babler Table teaches lasers with the claimed frequencies (which reads upon “the laser having a wavelength between 10600 nm (CO2 laser) and 266nm (quadrupled frequency of an Nd-Yag laser), preferably between 1064 nm and 355nm”, as recited in the instant claim; column 5, lines 34-68). Babler teaches that “the markings obtained in this invention are also corrosion-proof, dimensionally stable, free from deformation, fast to light, heat and weathering” (column 7, lines 13-27). Babler teaches “to obtain markings that give rise to no perceptible loss of surface gloss” (column 7, lines 13-27). Babler teaches that “the process of the invention makes it possible to produce a marking which has the additional effect of causing the marking to appear dark from the top view, but bright and almost transparent when viewed in perspective” (which reads upon instant claim 18; column 8, lines 10-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to use the size/shape of the powder and the frequency of the laser, as taught by Babler to use known and tested size/shape of the metal particles and the frequency of the laser known to be suitable for laser marking to obtain markings that give rise to no perceptible loss of surface gloss.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that heating the platelets of Babler with the laser would cause the originally thin platelet or the thin metallic portion to at least partially liquefies and re-solidifies in a sphere-like form.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brady et al. (US 20210172069 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above.
Kim is silent regarding that the metallic portion in metallic form of the pigments reacts by participation or partial absorption of the light input by means of an exothermic chemical reaction with further constituents of the pigment and/or with laser light-sensitive fillers of the matrix in which the pigment is embedded.
Brady is similarly concerned with painting substrates (paragraph [0078]). Brady teaches that “another preferred result of the aspects disclosed herein is the exothermic nature of the coating formation process” (which reads upon “exothermic chemical reaction”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0081]). Brady teaches that “the exothermic process leads to an improved coating adhesion” (paragraph [0081]). Brady teaches that “the thermite process includes a fuel and an oxidizer” (paragraph [0082]). Brady teaches that “to provide a thermite process in the coating substrate interaction, certain components include Al, Mg, Tl, Zn, Si, and B as fuels and bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), boron oxide (B2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), chromium oxide (Cr2O3), manganese oxide (MnO2), iron oxide (Fe2O3), iron oxide (FeO), and copper oxide (CuO) as oxidizers” (which reads upon “with further constituents of the pigment and/or with laser light-sensitive fillers of the matrix in which the pigment is embedded”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0082]). Brady teaches that “the materials described herein preferably provide an inherent exothermic reaction to produce the coatings used for both layers, thus, if the correct materials are chosen, the resultant material may be able to ignite based on either an application of heat through a propane torch, or a stimulant” (paragraph [0046]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the paint of Kim to include oxides as oxidizers, as taught by Brady to promote an exothermic or thermite reaction upon heating (with the laser of Brady), thus improving coating adhesion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20190144679 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kim teaches that “the metallic pigment may include at least one element selected from the group consisting of germanium (Ge), gold (Au), silver (Ag), boron (B), aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), indium (In), tin (Sn), and thallium (Tl)” (paragraph [0037]).
Kim is silent regarding that the metallic portion in metallic form is a vacuum-metallized pigment, or has a vacuum-metallized core or layer, preferably with a maximum thickness of the metallic core or layer of below 80 nm, preferably below 32 nm, more preferably below 27 nm, still more preferably below 25 nm, and most preferably between 8 nm and 17 nm.
Shimizu is similarly concerned with the use of metallic luster pigments in automotive paint systems (paragraph [0003]). Shimizu teaches that “the aluminum platelets may take various forms” (paragraph [0030]). Shimizu teaches that “substrate platelets used may, for example, be lamellar and lenticular metal platelets or else what are called vacuum metallized pigments (VMP)” (which reads upon “the metallic portion in metallic form is a vacuum-metallized pigment, or has a vacuum-metallized core or layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). Shimizu teaches that “VMPs may be obtained by the release of aluminum from metallized foils, and that they feature a particularly low thickness of the substrate platelets in the range from 5 to 50 nm, preferably up to or less than 30 nm” (which reads upon “preferably with a maximum thickness of the metallic core or layer of below 80 nm, preferably below 32 nm, more preferably below 27 nm, still more preferably below 25 nm, and most preferably between 8 nm and 17 nm”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]). Shimizu teaches that “Al-VMPs are preferred” (paragraph [0032]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the aluminum metallic pigment of Kim with aluminum VMPs, as taught by Shimizu because they are preferred as metallic luster pigments in automotive paint systems. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Shimizu teaches that aluminum VMPs are suitable (in fact, preferred) as metallic luster pigments in automotive paint systems.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170047070 A), as machine translated, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Honma et al. (JP 2010251899 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 13-15, Kim teaches the method of claims 1 and 7 as stated above. Kim teaches that “referring to Fig. 5, radio waves (L1) irradiated from the radar (100) pass through a radome (4) formed on the front grill and are radiated toward the front of the vehicle, and radio waves (L2) reflected by an object in front of the vehicle pass through the radome (4) and return to the radar (100)” (paragraph [0082]).
Kim is silent regarding the amount of reduction of reflectance in dB, or the increase in radio wave transmission in dB.
Honma is similarly concerned with a metal composite material that is transparent to electromagnetic waves such as millimeter waves used in automobile radars which has a decorative luster in appearance (paragraph [0001]). Honma teaches that “automotive radar is installed at the front or rear of the vehicle and can determine the appropriate distance between vehicles and detect pedestrians and other obstacles in front and behind the vehicle in the dark” (paragraph [0003]). Honma teaches that “the emblem and the grille around it are plated with decorative metallic luster, particularly chrome plating, and this luster metal plating does not transmit radio waves, therefore, simply installing an automotive radar unit on or around the emblem results in the inability to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves, resulting in a problem of insufficient performance” (paragraph [0005]; initially, no ability to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves). Honma teaches that “the inventors discovered that by artificially forming an island-like structure in the metal thin film, i.e., a sea-island structure in which metal regions are islands and the metal-free regions surrounding these islands form the sea, with regularity, and insulating each metal region from another by the metal-free region, while controlling the area of the metal region and the distance between adjacent metal regions, it is possible to obtain a material with electromagnetic wave transparency comparable to that of conventional indium coatings, leading to the present invention” (paragraph [0013]; Honma metal islands correspond to decorative layer 40 of Kim, while the metal-free regions surrounding these islands correspond to removal portion 41 of Kim). Honma teaches that “a metal coating in which metal regions are formed in a regular island pattern on a resin substrate, and the area of the metal regions is 0.001 to 0.81 mm NER4 and the spacing between adjacent metal regions is 0.01 to 0.06 mm, so the metal regions are insulated from each other and can achieve an absorption rate of -5 to 0 dB for electromagnetic waves in the 1 to 110 GHz range, which is a practically acceptable level” (paragraph [0017]). Honma teaches that “even when inexpensive metals such as aluminum or chromium are used, electromagnetic waves in the 1 to 110 GHz range can be transmitted, and because the metal regions are formed in a regular island pattern, the transmittance is almost uniform throughout the entire range” (paragraph [0017]). Honma teaches that “because the spacing between the metal regions is extremely small and the gaps are not visible, the surface retains a glossy appearance similar to that of a normal metal surface” (paragraph [0017]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radome pattern of Kim to use the spacing, as taught by Honma to ensure that the surface retains a glossy appearance similar to that of a normal metal surface and achieve an absorption rate of -5 to 0 dB for electromagnetic waves in the 1 to 110 GHz range. Going from no ability to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves to an absorption rate of -5 to 0 dB for electromagnetic waves reads on the claimed improvements.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733