DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on December 12, 2025. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 15-19 are added, and presents arguments, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 12, 2025 have been fully considered.
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).
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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102123392 B1 (Misra), in view of CN 111902036 B (Li) and in further view of JP 5138623 B2 (Aramaki) and JP 2019102665 A (Sano).
Regarding Claims 1, 2-3 and 13-18:
A designed electromagnetic wave suppressor, comprising: a design layer; and an electromagnetic wave suppressor having an electromagnetic wave return attenuation of 10 dB or more in a frequency range of 60 GHZ to 90 GHZ (Misra: Figs. 1-3, various forms of electromagnetic wave suppression pads that has RF reflective or absorbing material 32 sandwiched between two layers 12 and 14, e.g., in Fig. 1, where layers 12 and 14 are preferably made from an electrically insulating material, thermally conductive materials, and all three layers may also provide the ductile and flexible properties; Figs. 4-7 list the applications, e.g., in electronic device and etc.).
Misra does not teach explicitly on attenuation of 10 dB or more. However, Li teaches (Li: e.g., Fig. 5, transmission attenuation rate Rtp > 10 dB at a frequency range for various implementation examples).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misra with attenuation of 10 dB or more as further taught by Li. The advantage of doing so is to provide mechanisms for electromagnetic noise suppression of the high-frequency electronic device to enhance 5G communication performance and usability (Li: Background).
Misra as modified teaches material complex permeability. However, Misra as modifies does not teach explicitly on permittivity of electromagnetic wave suppression sheet. However, Aramaki teaches (Aramaki: e.g., in section of Carbon fiber, the electromagnetic wave absorption energy P (W / m3 ) is represented by the following formula (2) using the electrolysis E, the magnetic field H, and the frequency f. Here, in the following formula (2), the first term represents the conductive loss, the second term represents the dielectric loss, and the third term represents the magnetic loss.
P = 1 / 2σ | E | .sup.2 + πfε ″ | E | .sup.2 + πfμ | H | .sup.2 Formula (2)
In the formula (2), σ represents conductivity. ε represents a complex dielectric constant, and ε = ε′−jε ″. μ represents a complex magnetic permittivity, and μ = μ′−jμ ″. It is further noted that Complex Permittivity: Real Part (ε'): Represents the dielectric constant, indicating how much the material can store electrical energy. Imaginary Part (ε"): Represents energy loss due to polarization, meaning the material's interaction with the electric field causes energy to be dissipated as heat or other forms of energy. Purpose: Characterizes how well a material can store electrical energy and how much energy is lost during the process.
Complex Permeability: Real Part (μ'): Represents how strongly the material can be magnetized. Imaginary Part (μ"): Represents energy loss due to hysteresis, meaning the material's interaction with the magnetic field causes energy to be dissipated. Purpose: Characterizes how well a material can store magnetic energy and how much energy is lost during the process.
Therefore, choices of complex permeability and complex permittivity depend on design and application requirements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misra with permittivity of electromagnetic wave suppression sheet as further taught by Aramaki. The advantage of doing so is to provide mechanisms for a magnetic sheet that has sufficient flame retardancy even when the amount of the flame retardant used is small and exhibits an excellent noise suppression effect (Aramaki: Background).
Misra does not teach explicitly on wave return attenuation of 10 dB or more in a frequency range of 60 GHZ to 90 GHZ. However, Sano teaches (Sano: Example 7 and Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misra with wave return attenuation of 10 dB or more in a frequency range of 60 GHZ to 90 GHZ sheet as further taught by Sano. The advantage of doing so is to construct an electromagnetic environment suitable for EMC, an electromagnetic wave absorber capable of absorbing unnecessary radio waves and reducing reflected waves as much as possible (Sano: Background).
Regarding Claim 4, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave suppressor is a laminate including either of a dielectric layer and a magnetic layer, and a reflective layer (Li: “content of the invention”, “As an implementation mode, the electromagnetic wave noise suppression sheet orderly comprises a resistance layer, a magnetic layer, a metal layer and an insulating layer in the thickness direction.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave suppressor is a laminate including a resistance layer, either of a dielectric layer and a magnetic layer, and a reflective layer in this order (Li: “content of the invention”, (Li: “content of the invention”, As one implementation, the resistive layer is a mixed layer comprising ferrite and an adhesive, where ferrite is one of dielectric material).
Regarding Claim 6, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 5, wherein the resistance layer has a sheet resistance of 270 ohm/sq to 500 ohm/sq (Aramaki: Application: the surface resistance value is as low as 0.01 to 1 MΩ /sq).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102123392 B1 (Misra), in view of CN 111902036 B (Li) and in further view of JP 2019102665 A (Sano), JP 5138623 B2 (Aramaki), JP 2010157696 A (Tagima) and JP 4111565 B2 (Tsuzuki).
Regarding Claim 7, Misra as modified does not teach explicitly on a protection layer. However, Tagima and Tsuzuki teach:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 1, further comprising a surface protective layer on an outermost surface, the surface protective layer containing at least one of an antiviral agent and an antibacterial agent (It is noted that electronic device may contain protective layer that can contain an antistatic agent, an ultraviolet absorber, an antibacterial agent, an antifungal agent and the like, e.g. in Tagami: [0038] and Tsuzuki: [0006]), .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misra with protection layer as further taught by Tagami and Tsuzuki. The advantage of doing so is to provide a thin wave absorber that can be incorporated into a wall, a partition, or a ceiling material to provide a stable wave absorbing function (Tagami: Background).
Regarding Claim 8, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 7, wherein the surface protective layer has a thickness of 10 pm to 50 pm (Tsuzuki: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 7, wherein a real part of a complex permittivity of the surface protective layer is 7 or less (it is noted as Claim 1, choices of complex permeability and complex permittivity depend on design and application requirements.
Regarding Claim 10, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 7, wherein the antiviral agent contains a silver component (Tsuzuki: [0006]).
Regarding Claim 11, Misra as modified further teaches:
The designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 7, wherein the antibacterial agent is at least one selected from a group consisting of silver-based antibacterial agents, inorganic antibacterial agents, and organic antibacterial agents (Tagami: [0038] and Tsuzuki: [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Misra as modified further teaches:
A building material comprising the designed electromagnetic wave suppressor of claim 1 (Tsuzuki: [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but are potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHITONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1936. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am - 5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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.
/ZHITONG CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649