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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters:
1) "7" and "12" in Fig.3 have both been used to designate a same area.
2) "6" and "12" in Figs.3-5 have both been used to designate a same area.
3) "17" and "20" in Fig.5 have both been used to designate a same area.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character:
1) “12” in Figs.3-5 on top has been used to designate both “covered area” and “uncovered areas”.
2) “15” in Figs.3-5 has been used to designate both part in front unit and reflective light guide unit.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 objected to because of the following informalities: “Radome for vehicles” in line 1. It appears that “The” is missing before “Radome”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “the layer” in line 3. It appears that “air” is missing before “layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "between them" in line 6. It is indefinite because it’s not clear what “them” represent. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “between the front unit and the reflective light guide unit”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the layer” in line 3. It is indefinite because “a transparent layer”, “a colored decoration layer”, “an air layer”, “a reflective layer” are defined in claim 1 and it is not clear what “the layer” represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the air layer” Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “claim” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear which claim claim 11 depends on. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “claim 1”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 12-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11 because each of dependent claims 12-13 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 11.
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, 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajec Strle et al. (US 2022/0404539, hereafter Bajec Strle) in view of de Mersseman (US 12,332,469, hereafter de Mersseman).
Regarding claim 1, Bajec Strle (‘539) discloses that Radome for vehicles { Fig.1; [0002] lines 3-4 (radar covers for use in vehicles); [0035] lines 1 (FIG. 1 shows a cover 1,), 4 (over a radar sensor), 8 (attached to the front of a vehicle)}, characterized in that the radome comprises:
- a light source (28) { Fig.1 item 130 (light sources); [0037] line 5 (light sources 130) };
- a front unit (9) comprising a transparent layer (11) and a colored decoration layer (5) { Fig.5 item 10 (plate), 110 (insulating layer), 140 (graphic layer); [0008] line 7 (graphic layer provides a decorative component); [0038] lines 5-8 from bottom (The optical insulating layer 110 is preferably substantially transparent to light and optically clear and also substantially transparent to the radio waves used by the radar sensors) }; and
- a reflective light guide unit (10) comprising a light guide (13) and a reflective subunit (14) {Fig.5 (see marks below)},
PNG
media_image1.png
417
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the front unit (9) and the reflective light guide unit (10) { [0038] lines 11-12 from bottom (the light guide 100 has a refractive index of between 1.3 and 1.6 , preferably around 1.5 . Examiner’s note: refractive index of air layer is 1. )},
wherein the reflective subunit (14) comprises a reflective layer (22), {Fig.5 (see marks above)}.
However, Bajec Strle (‘539) does not explicitly disclose that “the front unit (9) and the reflective light guide unit (10) containing an air layer (16)” “between them” and “the reflective subunit (14) forms an integral single part with the light guide (13)”. In the same field of endeavor, de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that
the front unit (9) and the reflective light guide unit (10) containing an air layer (16) between them {Fig.6 air layer between items 612 (cover) and 606 (light guide); col.6 line 62-63 (light guide 606, a cover 612)};
the reflective subunit (14) forms an integral single part with the light guide (13) {Fig.6 items 606 (light guide) and 616 (metallic wire grids) are “an integral single part”; col.7 line 11 (metallic wire grids 616); Examiner’s note: Fig.6 item 616 for “the reflective subunit (14)” };
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) with the teachings of de Mersseman (‘469) {form light guide and reflective elements in a single part and separate the single part with a cover by an air layer} to form light guide and reflective elements in a single part and separate the single part with a cover by an air layer. Doing so would dispose a light guide in the field of view of a sensor (e.g. radar) so as to incorporate a sensing system within the structure and space available in a vehicle without adding significant cost, as recognized by de Mersseman (‘469) {col.1 lines 19-20 (incorporate a sensing system within the structure and space available in a vehicle), 28-29 (without adding significant cost), 38-39 (The light guide is disposed in the field of view of the radar sensor.)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective subunit (14) also comprises light extraction structures (21) {see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.1 item 120 (optical elements); [0039] lines 2-4 (optical elements 120 are provided on the bottom surface of the first layer 100. These optical elements 120 serve to outcouple light from the light guide 100 by diffusing light)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective subunit (14) also comprises one or more laminated foils (24) { see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.1 items 110 (insulating layer) closer to item 20(radar), 140 (graphic layer); [0035] line 4 (radar sensor 20); [0038] lines 12 from bottom (the light guide 100), 10-11 from bottom (optical insulating layer 110) ; [0040] lines 2-3 (a graphic layer 140, comprising a film or foil)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1 and 4, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective subunit (14) comprises two laminated foils (24), the reflective layer (22) being placed between the laminated foils (24) { see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.2 item 120 is between item 140; [0040] lines 2-3 (a graphic layer 140, comprising a film or foil)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the front unit (9) also comprises a metal looking decoration layer (6) { see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.5 item 140 (graphic layer); [0007] line 7 (graphic layer provides a decorative component); [0040] lines 2-3 (a graphic layer 140, comprising a film or foil, a metallic film)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the front unit (9) also comprises bright lighted areas (7) { see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.5 area between item 140 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
{see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.3 item 120 (optical elements); [0039] line 2 (optical elements 120)}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) disclose that in the Radome for vehicles,
the front unit (9) also comprises uncovered areas (12) {see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.5 area between item 140 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) disclose that in the Radome for vehicles,
a perimetral opaque housing (26) of a perimetral electronics assembly (25) is joined to the colored decoration layer (5) and to the reflective subunit (14) through gluing or welding unions (29, 30) {see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.3 items 160 (frame), 10 (cover plate); [0042] lines 14-17 (The frame 160 may be fixed to the outer rim of the cover plate 10 mechanically with, for example, screws, rivets, clips, deformation of the frame 160, adhesive tape, or the like, chemically, such as with glue}.
Claims 3, 6, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 8,816,932, hereafter Kawaguchi).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) do not explicitly disclose “the reflective subunit (14) also comprises a protective and opacity layer (23)”. In the same field of endeavor, Kawaguchi (‘932) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective subunit (14) also comprises a protective and opacity layer (23) { Fig.8 items 14 (light reflecting layer), 42 (protecting layer) ; col.19 line 7 (Opaque ABS resin); col.20 lines 10 (light reflecting layer 14), 12 (adhesion protecting layer 42 composed of ABS sheet)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) with the teachings of Kawaguchi (‘932) {use protecting layer 42 composed of opaque ABS sheet } to use protecting layer 42 composed of opaque ABS sheet. Doing so would protect a light reflecting layer 14, as recognized by Kawaguchi (‘932) {col.5 lines 41-42 (protects a light reflecting layer 14.)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) do not explicitly disclose that “the reflective layer (22) is applied on the light guide (13) by a Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) magnetron sputtering process or by a Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) process”. In the same field of endeavor, Kawaguchi (‘932) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective layer (22) is applied on the light guide (13) by a Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) magnetron sputtering process or by a Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) process { Col.7 lines 65-67 (The light reflecting layer 14 is formed, for example, by a physical vapor deposition of an alloy composed of either silicon or germanium and a metal.); Col.11 lines 23-24 (a light reflecting layer 14 is formed on a base surface by physical vapor deposition); col.22 lines 50-52 (the light reflective layer has a reflectance of 50% or higher formed with use of a DC magnetrons spattering.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) with the teachings of Kawaguchi (‘932) {use Physical Vapor Deposition process with a DC magnetrons spattering to form a reflective layer} to use Physical Vapor Deposition process with a DC magnetrons spattering to form a reflective layer. Doing so would form a thin film (e.g. alloy) on top of a base so as to produce mirror-surface like metallic luster at a low cost, as recognized by Kawaguchi (‘932) {col.2 lines 46-47 (mirror-surface like metallic luster, hardly loses its metallic luster, and can be produced at a low cost); col.8 lines 1-8 (The physical vapor deposition process is a method for forming a thin film by vaporizing an evaporation material ( an alloy) in a vacuum vessel in some way and then depositing the vaporized evaporation material on top of the base placed nearby, and the process can be further classified into an evaporation deposition process and a sputtering deposition process, depending on the method for vaporizing an evaporation material.)}.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3 shown above.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) disclose that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective subunit (14) also comprises one or more laminated foils (24) {see Bajec Strle (‘539) Fig.1 item 140 (graphic layer); [0040] lines 2-3 (a graphic layer 140, comprising a film or foil,), 11 (material of the film 140 is substantially opaque}.
Regarding claims 18-20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 6-8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 18-20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 6-8, respectively shown above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,431,884, hereafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 11, which is being interpreted as depending on claim 1, Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) do not explicitly disclose that “the front unit (9) also comprises depressions (17)”. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi (‘884) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the front unit (9) also comprises depressions (17) { Fig.3A item 11a; col.4 lines 1-2 (recessed portion 11a) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) with the teachings of Takahashi (‘884) {form recess areas on front cover} to form recess areas on front cover. Doing so would provide an emblem design to improve luxuriousness or texture in a design perspective of a vehicle, as recognized by Takahashi (‘884) {col.1 lines 30-34 (the emblem or the like is disposed on the front side of a vehicle, it is very important part in a design perspective of the vehicle, and metallic brilliance is often provided in the emblem or the like to improve luxuriousness or texture.)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claims 1 and 11, Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) do not explicitly disclose that “the front unit (9) comprises depression levelers (20) placed inside the depressions (17)”. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi (‘884) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the front unit (9) comprises depression levelers (20) placed inside the depressions (17) { Fig.3A item 12 (inner emblem); col.4 lines 1-2 (the inner emblem 12 is accommodated in the recessed portion 11a)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) with the teachings of Takahashi (‘884) {form recess areas on front cover and fill with inner emblem} to form recess areas on front cover and fill with inner emblem. Doing so would provide an emblem design to improve luxuriousness or texture in a design perspective of a vehicle, as recognized by Takahashi (‘884) {col.1 lines 30-34 (the emblem or the like is disposed on the front side of a vehicle, it is very important part in a design perspective of the vehicle, and metallic brilliance is often provided in the emblem or the like to improve luxuriousness or texture.)}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajec Strle (‘539), de Mersseman (‘469), and Takahashi (‘884) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi (‘932).
Regarding claim 13, which is being interpreted as depending on claims 1 and 11, Bajec Strle (‘539), de Mersseman (‘469), and Takahashi (‘884) do not explicitly disclose that “the reflective light guide unit (10) comprises filling protrusions (18) complementary with the depressions (17) of the front unit (9)”. In the same field of endeavor, Kawaguchi (‘932) discloses that in the Radome for vehicles,
the reflective light guide unit (10) comprises filling protrusions (18) complementary with the depressions (17) of the front unit (9) {Fig.8 items 14 (light reflecting layer), 16 (transparent organic material layer); col.9 lines 16 (transparent organic material layer 16), 22 (the light reflecting layer 14); Examiner’s note: “light reflecting layer” is part of “the reflective light guide unit (10)”.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bajec Strle (‘539) and de Mersseman (‘469) with the teachings of Kawaguchi (‘932) {use protrusion in light reflecting layer complementary with recess structure in cover layer } to use protrusion in light reflecting layer complementary with recess structure in cover layer. Doing so would provide a sensor (e.g. radar) dome with an emblem design of a car as shown so as to transmit radio waves (microwaves or the like) without adversely affecting the radio waves, as recognized by Kawaguchi (‘932) {col.1 lines 29-31 (transmits radio waves (microwaves or the like) without adversely affecting the radio waves); col. 19 lines 29-30 (A radar dome with an emblem design of a car as shown in FIG. 8)}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is represented by Bajec Strle (‘539), de Mersseman (‘469), Kawaguchi (‘932), Maeda et al. (US 2008/0309579, hereafter Maeda), and Grard et al. (US 11,958,401, hereafter Grard).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Bajec Strle (‘539), de Mersseman (‘469) , Kawaguchi (‘932), Maeda(‘579), and Grard(‘401), either alone or in combination, do not disclose (see words with underline)
the colored decoration layer (5) comprises cavities (19) complementary with protrusions (15) of the reflective light guide unit (10) for joining the front unit (9) and the reflective light guide unit (10) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,431,884 discloses that “the front unit (9) and/or the reflective light guide unit (10) comprise protrusions (15) oriented to the layer (16)” { Fig.3A item 10B}, which further support the rejection of claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648