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 11/06/2024 and 07/27/2023 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) 1-7, 9, 10-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue et al. (US 20150009083 hereinafter Shiue) in view of Hirotani et al. (US 20240201366 hereinafter Hirotani).
Regarding claim 1, Shiue teaches An electromagnetic shield (0003 “an assembly of the feed horn and a radome.”)
the electromagnetic shield comprising: a pair of first sides facing each other in a first direction in which the radar has a first angle of view (fig 8); and
a pair of second sides facing each other in a second direction in which the radar has a second angle of view smaller than the first angle of view (fig 8 [rectangular shape]),
the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction (fig 8 [feed horn has orthogonal sides]),
wherein the electromagnetic shield includes a dielectric (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.”), and
at least one of the pair of first sides includes a structure having at least one selected from the group consisting of a projecting portion and a recessed portion (0052 “each dielectric layer 40 of the feed horn 10' has a radial-shaped recess 45 concaved from a connecting surface 46 for being fastened to pipe 20. In this embodiment, the recess 45 comprises a central area 452 and a plurality of guiding areas 454 extending from the central area 452 and shallower than the central area 452.”).
While Shiue discloses 0005 “A feed horn is a component of a signal transmission device”, Shiue does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hirotani teaches
a radar having different angles of view in different directions (0017 “Accordingly, in the following description, the front in the emission direction of millimeter waves will simply be referred to as “forward” or “front.” The rear in the emission direction will simply be referred to as “rearward” or “rear.””)
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 teachings of Shiue. 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 Hirotani and Shiue 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 2, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein both of the paired first sides have the structure (Shiue 0044 “In each wave guiding unit 12, the dielectric layers 40 are fastened by glue to the first inner surfaces 221 respectively, therefore located at two ends of the short axis L3 respectively and face each other.”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein the pair of second sides have the structure (Shiue 0044 “In each wave guiding unit 12, the dielectric layers 40 are fastened by glue to the first inner surfaces 221 respectively, therefore located at two ends of the short axis L3 respectively and face each other.”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein only the pair of first sides have the structure (Shiue 0050 “the feed horn 10', the inner surfaces of each pipe 20 has two concaves 24 and the dielectric layers 40 are embedded and limited in the concaves 24, respectively.”).
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), alkylbenezenesulfonate (ABS), polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate (PC), and a mixture of ABS and PC, and other materials with low lose in electric waves including but not limited to glass.”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, 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 teachings of Shiue. 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 Hirotani and Shiue 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, 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 teachings of Shiue. 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 Hirotani and Shiue 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, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue et al. (US 20150009083 hereinafter Shiue) in view of Hirotani et al. (US 20240201366 hereinafter Hirotani) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dubost et al. (US 20230039346 hereinafter Dubost).
Regarding claim 8, 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 the electromagnetic shield satisfies a requirement (i) or (ii) below:
(i) a projection length of the projecting portion is 0.25λ, or more (0013 “the first parts form strips with a width equal to (N*λ)/4, N being a non-zero natural whole number and A being equal to the emission wavelength of the wave-emitting element,”),
a width of the projecting portion is 0.12λ, or more (0013 “a maximum thickness of the radome being less than or equal to 6 mm”), and
a distance between a plurality of the projecting portions adjacent to each other is 5.1λ or less (claim 1 “radome transparent to electromagnetic radiation of predetermined wavelength comprising a shaped metallic body perforated by a grid of circular-section apertures disposed on centers spaced substantially uniformly from each other by less than .lambda./2”); and (ii) a depth of the recessed portion is 0.25λ or more, a width of the recessed portion is 5.1λ or less, and a distance between a plurality of the recessed portions adjacent to each other is 0.12λ, or more.
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 Dubost 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 (Dubost 0055). 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, Dubost merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular range of λ values for a radar cover to enable proper radar operation. Since both the cited prior art and Dubost 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 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
SAKAI et al. (US 20190067827) discloses “An element section includes at least one antenna element transmitting/receiving radio waves. Refracting sections refract unnecessary waves, which are radio waves emitted from the element section and traveling away from a detection area (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