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 Amendment
The amendment filed 02/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C 102’, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nevin (EP 3670181 A1) and Shiraishi (JP 2018195854 A).
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C 103’, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nevin (EP 3670181 A1) and Shiraishi (JP 2018195854 A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevin (EP 3670181 A1) in view of Shiraishi (JP 2018195854 A).
Regarding claim 1 Nevin discloses
A radio wave absorber comprising: a resistive layer including multilayer carbon nanotubes (Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet, … The inset of Fig. 4 illustrates a close-up view of the interface between the first layer 11 and the second layer 12. The close-up illustrates the first 11 and second 12 layer comprising a polymer matrix 20 and a particulate filler 21 with radar absorbing properties being dispersed in the polymer matrix 20 of the first layer 11…The particulate filler material may e.g. be carbon black, graphene, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled carbon nanotubes" where layer 11 is the resistive layer and layer 12 is the dielectric)
a reflector that reflects a radio wave (Figure 10 elements 11, 12, 2, 4; Page 12 Paragraph six, "Fig. 10 illustrates a tile 10 wherein the first layer 11 is adhesively attached to a surface 2. The figures further illustrate an incoming radar wave 3 and the radar wave reflection 4 from the surface 2 covered by the tile 10, wherein the reflection 4 is attenuated in comparison to the incoming radar wave 3" where surface 2 is reflecting and acting as a reflector);
and a dielectric layer disposed between the resistive layer and the reflector in a thickness direction of the resistive layer (Figure 10 elements 11, 12, 2, 4; Page 12 Paragraph six, "Fig. 10 illustrates a tile 10 wherein the first layer 11 is adhesively attached to a surface 2. The figures further illustrate an incoming radar wave 3 and the radar wave reflection 4 from the surface 2 covered by the tile 10, wherein the reflection 4 is attenuated in comparison to the incoming radar wave 3").
Nevin does not disclose the carbon nanotubes having a specific resistance of 1.5 Ωcm or less.
Shiraishi discloses
The carbon nanotubes having a specific resistance of 1.5 Ωcm or less (Paragraph 0012, "the electromagnetic wave shielding layer is a material containing at least one of a conductive material and a magnetic absorbing material, and has a surface resistance value of 1 x 10-3 Ω/sq or more and 1 x 106 Ω/sq or less" where for 1cm thickness the resistance would be 1 x 10-3 Ωcm).
Nevin discloses a layer of carbon nanotubes but does not disclose the specific resistance. Nevin defining the specific resistance would be advantageous for the implementation of the invention and informing future creators and how to construct the device. Additionally, keeping the specific resistance at or below 1.5 Ωcm promotes signal attenuation turning the energy into heat and maintaining absorption performance at the desired frequency. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nevin with Shiraishi to add in a specific resistance for the implementation of the invention and to promote signal absorption.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin further discloses wherein the multilayer carbon nanotube has a diameter of 70 nm or less (Page 12 Paragraph one, "The particulate filler may e.g. have particle sizes up to 50 µm" which includes 70nm and where the particle size is tantamount to diameter).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin further discloses wherein the resistive layer includes a binder binding the multilayer carbon nanotubes to each other, and the binder includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyurethane, a polyacrylate, an epoxy resin, and a polyester (Figure 4 cutout elements 20 binder and 21 carbon nanotubes; Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet, … The inset of Fig. 4 illustrates a close-up view of the interface between the first layer 11 and the second layer 12. The close-up illustrates the first 11 and second 12 layer comprising a polymer matrix 20 and a particulate filler 21 with radar absorbing properties being dispersed in the polymer matrix 20 of the first layer 11…The particulate filler material may e.g. be carbon black, graphene, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled carbon nanotubes"; Abstract, “wherein the polymer matrix of at least one of the first and the second layer is thermoplastic polyurethane”).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin further discloses wherein the resistive layer is free of an aliphatic cellulose ester (Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet, … The inset of Fig. 4 illustrates a close-up view of the interface between the first layer 11 and the second layer 12. The close-up illustrates the first 11 and second 12 layer comprising a polymer matrix 20 and a particulate filler 21 with radar absorbing properties being dispersed in the polymer matrix 20 of the first layer 11…The particulate filler material may e.g. be carbon black, graphene, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled carbon nanotubes"; Abstract, “wherein the polymer matrix of at least one of the first and the second layer is thermoplastic polyurethane” where there is no aliphatic cellulose ester).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin further discloses further comprising a supporting layer including an organic polymer, the supporting layer supporting the resistive layer (Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet, … The inset of Fig. 4 illustrates a close-up view of the interface between the first layer 11 and the second layer 12. The close-up illustrates the first 11 and second 12 layer comprising a polymer matrix 20 and a particulate filler 21 with radar absorbing properties being dispersed in the polymer matrix 20 of the first layer 11…The particulate filler material may e.g. be carbon black, graphene, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled carbon nanotubes"; Abstract, “wherein the polymer matrix of at least one of the first and the second layer is thermoplastic polyurethane” where layer 11 is the resistive layer and layer 12 is the dielectric that has polyurethane which is an organic polymer).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin does not disclose wherein a content of the multilayer carbon nanotubes in the resistive layer is 3% or more on a mass basis.
Shiraishi discloses
Wherein a content of the multilayer carbon nanotubes in the resistive layer is 3% or more on a mass basis (Paragraph 119, “Furthermore, when the electromagnetic wave blocking layer 3 is a mixed layer, the content
of the carbon allotrope in the mixed layer is preferably 5 wi% or more and 30 wi% or less, and more preferably 10 wit% or more and 20 wt% or less”).
Nevin discloses the use of carbon nanotubes but does not disclose what percentage of the layer by mass they occupy. Nevin setting the percentage amount of carbon nanotubes helps to implement the invention has this detail is omitted. Additionally, Nevin using a > 3% amount of carbon nanotubes promotes a continuous network of particulates (no strange voids because there is not enough carbon nanotubes) and with a greater amount of carbon nanotubes the absorbing layer can have been impedance matching. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nevin with Shiraishi so that Nevin can implement the absorbing layer and improve impedance matching to reduce reflections.
Regarding claim 8 Nevin discloses
A laminate for a radio wave absorber, the laminate comprising: a resistive layer including multilayer carbon nanotubes (Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet, … The inset of Fig. 4 illustrates a close-up view of the interface between the first layer 11 and the second layer 12. The close-up illustrates the first 11 and second 12 layer comprising a polymer matrix 20 and a particulate filler 21 with radar absorbing properties being dispersed in the polymer matrix 20 of the first layer 11…The particulate filler material may e.g. be carbon black, graphene, single walled carbon nanotubes, multi walled carbon nanotubes" where layer 11 is the resistive layer and layer 12 is the dielectric)
and a dielectric layer (Page 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet" where layer 11 is the resistive layer and layer 12 is the dielectric),
and the laminate is capable of producing a radio wave absorber by being attached to a member that reflects a radio wave such that the dielectric layer is located between a surface of the member and the resistive layer, and the dielectric layer has a thickness that allows interference between a first radio wave reflected by the surface of the resistive layer and a second radio wave reflected by the member, the first radio wave and the second radio wave both having a wavelength to be absorbed by the radio wave absorber (Page 4 Paragraph three, "The layers may e.g. be arranged such that reflections from the air to tile interface and/or reflections from a layer to layer interface or interfaces may interfere destructively with the reflection from the tile to surface interface, the surface herein referring to the surface which the tile is adhesively attached to"; Page 4 Paragraph three, "The reduction of the radar wave reflection from the surface may then be caused by a combination of absorption in one or more layers and destructive interference with one or more reflections from the air to tile interface and/or layer to layer interfaces. Destructive interference between reflections from two interfaces may be facilitated by ensuring that the reflections have opposite phase. This may be done e.g. by arranging the interfaces such that the distance between the interfaces is a quarter of the wavelength for the radar wave which should be reduced, wherein the wavelength refers to the wavelength within the material. Ensuring that the reflections have opposite phase may also be done e.g. by arranging the interfaces such that the distance between the interfaces is an odd multiple of a quarter of the wavelength for the radar wave which should be reduced"),
and the resistive layer is placed on the dielectric layer (age 12 Paragraph one, "Fig. 4 illustrates a tile 10 wherein a first layer 11 and a second layer 12 combines to a laminate of layers to form a flexible surface sheet" where layer 11 is the resistive layer and layer 12 is the dielectric). Nevin does not disclose and having a specific resistance of 1.5 Ωcm or less;
wherein the resistive layer is placed on the dielectric layer, and a sheet resistance layer is 200 Ω/□ to 600 Ω/□.
Shiraishi discloses
The carbon nanotubes having a specific resistance of 1.5 Ωcm or less (Paragraph 0012, "the electromagnetic wave shielding layer is a material containing at least one of a conductive material and a magnetic absorbing material, and has a surface resistance value of 1 x 10-3 Ω/sq or more and 1 x 106 Ω/sq or less" where for 1cm thickness the resistance would be 1 x 10-3 Ωcm);
wherein the resistive layer is placed on the dielectric layer, and a sheet resistance layer is 200 Ω/□ to 600 Ω/□ (Paragraph 0012, "the electromagnetic wave shielding layer is a material containing at least one of a conductive material and a magnetic absorbing material, and has a surface resistance value of 1 x 10-3 Ω/sq or more and 1 x 106 Ω/sq or less" where for 1cm thickness the resistance would be 1 x 10-3 Ωcm).
Nevin discloses a layer of carbon nanotubes but does not disclose the specific resistance or sheet resistance. Nevin defining the specific resistance and sheet resistance would be advantageous for the implementation of the invention and informing future creators how to construct the device. Additionally, Nevin keeping the specific resistance at or below 1.5 Ωcm promotes signal attenuation turning the energy into heat and maintaining absorption performance at the desired frequency. A sheet resistance between 200 Ω/□ to 600 Ω/□, facilitates impedance matching, aiding in the absorption of the radar signals. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nevin with Shiraishi to add in a specific resistance and sheet resistance for the implementation of the invention and to promote signal absorption.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevin (EP 3670181 A1) in view of Shiraishi (JP 2018195854 A) further in view of Yamada 2011 [Yamada, T., Hayamizu, Y., Yamamoto, Y. et al. A stretchable carbon nanotube strain sensor for human-motion detection. Nature Nanotech 6, 296–301 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.36].
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Nevin and Shiraishi discloses
The radio wave absorber according to claim 1. Nevin does not disclose wherein an electrical resistance Rt of the resistive layer after a tensile test in which a tensile stress is applied to the resistive layer in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction of the resistive layer to cause a 10% strain and an electrical resistance R0 of the resistive layer before the tensile test satisfy a relation 100 x { (Rt/ R0) -1} ≤15.
Yamada discloses
Wherein an electrical resistance Rt of the resistive layer after a tensile test in which a tensile stress is applied to the resistive layer in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction of the resistive layer to cause a 10% strain and an electrical resistance R0 of the resistive layer before the tensile test satisfy a relation 100 x { (Rt/ R0) -1} ≤15 (Page 297 Column 2-Page 298 Column 1 Paragraph one, "The slope reflects the gauge factor (the sensitivity of the SWCNT film to strain), which is defined as (dR/R)/(dL/L), where R is resistance and L is length. The gauge factors were calculated to be 0.82 (0 to ∼40% strain)" where the claimed equation is the gauge factor).
Nevin discloses the use of carbon nanotubes and a resistive layer but it does not disclose what the gauge factor is after different levels of strain. Nevin limiting the resistance of the resistive layer after deformation is advantageous in ensuring that the invention retains its ability to absorb even after being deformed. The invention would be more robust against damage. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nevin with Yamada to design the resistive layer such that it can be deformed and retain its ability to absorb radar waves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm ET.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights