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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2023 and 11/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue et al. (US 20150009083 hereinafter Shiue) in view of Saqueb et al. (US 20220179039 hereinafter Saqueb).
Regarding claim 1, Shiue teaches An electromagnetic shield, comprising: a plate-shaped base having a first surface and a second surface (0009 “It is an objective of the present invention to provide a feed horn which has dielectric layers for improving the performance of the feed horn in isolation and directivity.; fig 1”),
the first surface being configured to allow an electromagnetic wave to be incident on the first surface (fig 8),
the second surface being distant from the first surface and extending along the first surface (fig 8 [rectangular shape]);
a plurality of first projecting portions projecting from the first surface in a direction away from the second surface (fig 18 [radome 90 has protrusions 94]; 0067 “The concave surfaces 942b of the elliptic protruding portions 942 of the protrusions 94 face the wave guiding spaces 122 of the wave guiding units 12, respectively.”); and
a contact portion configured to be in contact with a component other than the electromagnetic shield (0059 “Referring to FIGS. 13-17, the radome 90 comprises a flat cover 92 and a protrusion 94 integrally connected with the cover 92 at the center of the cover 92.”),
wherein the electromagnetic shield includes a dielectric (0044 “Each dielectric layer 40 is a sheet made of a material having a larger dielectric constant than air, such as plastic materials including but not limited to polypropylene (PP)”),
the electromagnetic shield is capable of being attached to the component such that the component is in contact with the contact portion and the first surface faces the component (fig 18),
Shiue does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Saqueb teaches
and the electromagnetic shield satisfies at least one selected from the group consisting of the following requirements (I) and (II):(I) the electromagnetic shield includes, in a particular portion, a second projecting portion projecting from the second surface in a direction away from the first surface, and a distance from the contact portion to the particular portion in a direction parallel to the first surface is equal to or shorter than a first distance between the first projecting portion closest to the contact portion and the contact portion, the particular portion being a portion including the contact portion and the first projecting portion closest to the contact portion; and (II) the plurality of first projecting portions includes a proximal projecting portion and a distal projecting portion, a projection length of the proximal projecting portion is shorter than a projection length of the distal projecting portion, and the distal projecting portion is adjacent to the proximal projecting portion in a direction away from the contact portion (0059 “a radome having on at least one of the interior surface or the exterior surface a respective pattern of hemispherical indentations or domes”; 0035 “In the radome 300, as in with other example facia or radomes supporting ultra-wide radar field-of-view, either surface of the radome 300 can include a similar pattern of hemispherical domes, protrusions, and/or bump-outs extending from, as opposed to indenting into, the radome 300.”; claim 3 “wherein the interior surface is arranged parallel to the array of elements.” [corresponds to requirement I])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Saqueb with the teachings of Shiue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radome system (0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Saqueb merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radome features. Since both Shiue and Saqueb disclose similar radar coverings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the electromagnetic shield and the base is a ring-shaped body and has a polygonal or circular outer perimeter when the first surface is viewed along an axis of the ring shaped body, and the contact portion abuts on the outer perimeter (Shiue fig 13; 0061 “The protrusion 94 has an elliptic protruding portion 942 shaped as a part of a hollow ellipsoid and a spherical protruding portion 944 shaped as a part of a spheroid.”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the electromagnetic shield and the base is a hollow body whose outer shape is a truncated pyramidal shape, a truncated conical shape, or a truncated elliptical conical shape (Saqueb 0016 “In one example, periodic pyramidal structures are formed on both sides of the radome.”) and which has an opening in each of positions in the outer shape, the positions corresponding to an upper base and a lower base of a truncated pyramid, a truncated cone, or a truncated elliptic cone, the first surface defines an inner peripheral surface of the hollow body being the electromagnetic shield or the base, and the second surface defines an outer peripheral surface of the hollow body being the electromagnetic shield or the base (Saqueb fig 15-2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Saqueb with the teachings of Shiue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radome system (0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Saqueb merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radome features. Since both Shiue and Saqueb disclose similar radar coverings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of first projecting portions projects in a direction perpendicular to the lower base (Saqueb fig 15-2; 0052 “here are many possible hemispheric patterns including indentations, as well as domes, bumps, or protrusions that are cylindrical in shape or varying from one row or column to the next, offsetting indentations, domes, protrusions, or bump outs instead of in-line features can be used, and other patterns of hemispherical indentations, domes, protrusions or bump-outs may be randomly or pseudo-randomly arranged in position.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Saqueb with the teachings of Shiue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radome system (0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Saqueb merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radome features. Since both Shiue and Saqueb disclose similar radar coverings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic shield is free of an electrically conductive portion (Shiue 0044 “Each dielectric layer 40 is a sheet made of a material having a larger dielectric constant than air, such as plastic materials including but not limited to polypropylene (PP),”; ).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein the first projecting portion has a shape of at least one selected from the group consisting of a circle, a triangle, a quadrilateral, and a polygon having five or more corners when viewed in plan (Saqueb 0052 “It is clear, therefore, that there are many possible hemispheric patterns including indentations, as well as domes, bumps, or protrusions that are cylindrical in shape or varying from one row or column to the next, offsetting indentations, domes, protrusions, or bump outs instead of in-line features can be used, and other patterns of hemispherical indentations, domes, protrusions or bump-outs may be randomly or pseudo-randomly arranged in position.” [cylindirical in shape of Saqueb corresponds to a circle shape]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Saqueb with the teachings of Shiue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radome system (0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Saqueb merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radome features. Since both Shiue and Saqueb disclose similar radar coverings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein arrangement of the plurality of first projecting portions is at least one selected from the group consisting of arrangement at lattice points, arrangement on parallel lines, and random arrangement in plan view (Saqueb 0031 “It is clear, therefore, that there are many possible hemispheric patterns including: indentations that are cylindrical in shape or varying from one row or column to the next, offsetting indentations instead of in-line, and other patterns of hemispherical indentations that may be random or pseudo-random in position.” [corresponds to a random arrangement]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Saqueb with the teachings of Shiue. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a radome system (0002). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Saqueb merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radome features. Since both Shiue and Saqueb disclose similar radar coverings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue et al. (US 20150009083 hereinafter Shiue) in view of Saqueb et al. (US 20220179039 hereinafter Saqueb) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hirotani et al. (US 20240201366 hereinafter Hirotani).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Saqueb teaches
wherein an imaginary part ε" of a relative permittivity of the dielectric at at least one frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz is 0.1 or less (Hirotani 0034 “The white plastic layer 24 meets the following conditions. [0035] (A) The thickness, in this case, the dimension in the front-rear direction is less than or equal to 2.0 mm. [0036] (B) When the millimeter wave radar device 12 emits millimeter waves in a band that has a median frequency of 76.5 GHZ, the permittivity is less than or equal to 3.1.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hirotani with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve propagation and allow for high-speed calculations (Hirotani 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hirotani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Hirotani disclose similar mm-wave devices with a cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Saqueb teaches
wherein a real part ε' of a relative permittivity of the dielectric at at least one frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz is 2.0 to 4.0 (Hirotani 0034 “The white plastic layer 24 meets the following conditions. [0035] (A) The thickness, in this case, the dimension in the front-rear direction is less than or equal to 2.0 mm. [0036] (B) When the millimeter wave radar device 12 emits millimeter waves in a band that has a median frequency of 76.5 GHZ, the permittivity is less than or equal to 3.1.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hirotani with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve propagation and allow for high-speed calculations (Hirotani 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hirotani merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Hirotani disclose similar mm-wave devices with a cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue et al. (US 20150009083 hereinafter Shiue) in view of Saqueb et al. (US 20220179039 hereinafter Saqueb) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Iluz et al. (US 20200373658 hereinafter Iluz).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Iluz teaches
wherein the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ, and at least one of projection lengths pi of the first projecting portions satisfies a requirement 0.25λ ≤ pi ≤ 1.3λ (0004 “A second type of a commercially available radome shell structure is referred in the art as a “half-wavelength-thick” structure, in which the thickness of the shielding layer is set to be half the working RF wavelength (or an integer product thereof)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Iluz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radome performance (Iluz 0197). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Iluz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Iluz disclose similar mm-wave devices with a cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Iluz teaches
wherein the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ, and at least one of widths wi of the first projecting portions satisfies a requirement 0.51λ ≤ wi 1.6λ (0004 “A second type of a commercially available radome shell structure is referred in the art as a “half-wavelength-thick” structure, in which the thickness of the shielding layer is set to be half the working RF wavelength (or an integer product thereof)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Iluz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radome performance (Iluz 0197). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Iluz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Iluz disclose similar mm-wave devices with a cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ, and an interval ii between the first projecting portions adjacent to each other satisfies a requirement 0.51λ ≤ ii ≤ 1.6λ (0004 “A second type of a commercially available radome shell structure is referred in the art as a “half-wavelength-thick” structure, in which the thickness of the shielding layer is set to be half the working RF wavelength (or an integer product thereof)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Iluz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radome performance (Iluz 0197). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Iluz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Iluz disclose similar mm-wave devices with a cover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Inada et al. (US 20140070982) discloses “A vehicle obstacle detection device comprises: a radar unit provided between a back surface of a bumper and a wheel and configured to detect an obstacle by transmitting a radio wave through the bumper (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648