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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 11/3/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 8 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 8 does not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, it lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Claim 8 lacks unity of invention with the originally filed group of claims because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the a laminated structure comprising, in the following order, an outer member having a concave portion; a metal layer; and an inner member having a convex portion that is fitted with the concave portion to form a fitting portion; this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of Doke et al (US 2021/0063530 A1) (see below rejection).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doke et al (US 2021/0063530 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, Doke teaches a laminated structure (e.g., radio wave transmissive cover) comprising, in the following order, an outer member having a concave portion; a metal layer (e.g., indium); and an inner member having a convex portion that is fitted with the concave portion to form a fitting portion; further comprising a region surrounded by the fitting portion; and an object detection structure comprising the laminated structure according to claim 1; and a millimeter wave radar that emits a millimeter wave toward the laminated structure (para 20-22; see fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the metal layer is not in contact with the inner member,” Doke teaches the metal films have island-like structures; wherein, the island-like structure refers to a structure in which no single film covering the entire surface is provided, and a great number of slightly separated or partly contacting island-like metal films are laid over the surface (i.e., wherein the metal layer has a sea-island structure in which metal particles are dispersedly provided in a shape of islands) (para 22). These island-like structure would have a thickness and a side edge not in contact with the inner member (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the metal layer is not in contact with the inner member).
Regarding claim 6, Doke teaches the laminated structure is a sensor attached to the vehicle (i.e., a movable body comprising an exterior member, wherein the exterior member comprises the laminated structure) (para 20-21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doke.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the thickness of the laminated structure (e.g., radio wave transmissive cover), and therein the distance between the fitting portion and the outer peripheral edge of the laminated structure, of Doke to optimize its physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., overall strength), design or aesthetics, and ability to function properly as a radio wave transmissive cover.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morihara et al (WO 2020/256127 A1).
Doke teaches the laminated structure of claim 1.
Doke fails to suggest wherein the metal layer comprises a silver particle layer.
Morihara teaches silver particle layers that are substituted for indium layers in laminated structures used for millimeter wave radar devices or applications (para 2-5, 12, 17, 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the silver particle layer of Morihara for the indium particle layers of Doke; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the metal layer is not in contact with the inner member,” Doke teaches the metal films have island-like structures; wherein, the island-like structure refers to a structure in which no single film covering the entire surface is provided, and a great number of slightly separated or partly contacting island-like metal films are laid over the surface (i.e., wherein the metal layer has a sea-island structure in which metal particles are dispersedly provided in a shape of islands) (para 22). These island-like structure would have a thickness and a side edge not in contact with the inner member (i.e., wherein at least a portion of the metal layer is not in contact with the inner member).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783