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 .
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 8, 11, and 12 are 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 8 recites the limitation "the laser transmission side" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the element" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka. Regarding Claim 1, Oka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0307112). Oka et al., hereafter “Oka,” show that it is known to have a structure (Abstract) comprising a first member formed from a thermoplastic resin composition A which is transmissive (member I; 0136, 0138) and a second member formed from a thermoplastic resin B (member II; 0246-0247), the first member and the second member being joined at least partially (0262-0264). Oka does not specifically show the claimed transmittance and absorptance values and formulas, however he does disclose that transmittance and absorptance can be varied (0139, 0237, 0247). It would have been obvious to use any appropriate transmittance an absorptance values, such as those claimed, in order to tailor the product to user specifications and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 2, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic resin B comprises an electrically conductive carbon compound (0232).
Regarding Claim 4, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic resin composition B comprises a reinforcing material (0243).
Regarding Claim 5, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic resin composition B comprises a polybutylene terephthalate resin (0151).
Regarding Claim 6, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, including one wherein the thermoplastic resin composition A comprises a polybutylene terephthalate resin (0046).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, including one wherein the first member and the second member are joined by laser welding (0262-0263).
Regarding Claim 9, Oka shows the structure of claim 1, including showing that transmittance and absorptance can be varied (0139, 0237, 0247). It would have been obvious to use any appropriate transmittance an absorptance values, such as those claimed, in order to tailor the product to user specifications and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Oka shows that it is known to carry out a production method of a structure comprising joining a first member formed from thermoplastic resin composition A which is transmissive (member I; 0136, 0138) and a second member formed from thermoplastic resin composition B which is absorptive (member II; 0246-0247) at least partially (0262-0264). Oka does not specifically show the claimed transmittance and absorptance values and formulas, however he does disclose that transmittance and absorptance can be varied (0139, 0237, 0247). It would have been obvious to use any appropriate transmittance an absorptance values, such as those claimed, in order to tailor the product to user specifications and because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 3, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka, in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0227663).
Regarding Claim 3, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, but he does not show carbon nanotubes. Suzuki et al., hereafter “Suzuki,” shows that it is known to use carbon nanotubes in a radio wave absorptive layer (0010). It would have been obvious to use Suzuki’s carbon nanotubes as the carbon compound in Oka’s structure because carbon nanotubes are preferred materials with a high dielectric loss (Suzuki, 0010).
Regarding Claim 10, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, but he does not describe an electromagnetic wave controller. Suzuki shows a structure which further comprises an electromagnetic wave controller (element 5). It would have been obvious to include Suzuki’s electromagnetic wave controller with Oka’s structure in order detect and receive the desired electromagnetic waves.
Regarding Claim 11, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, but he does not show a housing. Suzuki shows a structure having a housing with a hollow structure surrounded by at least the first member and the second member, with the housing enclosing an element (element 3). It would have been obvious to include Suzuki’s housing within Oka’s structure in to provide a product with an additional function element therein.
Regarding Claim 12, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, but he does not show an element which emits or detects electromagnetic waves. Suzuki shows a structure which includes an element which emits or detects electromagnetic waves (element 4). It would have been obvious to include Suzuki’s element within Oka’s structure in to provide a product with an additional function element therein.
Regarding Claim 13, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 above, but he does not show an element which emits or detects electromagnetic waves. Suzuki shows a structure wherein the first member and/or the second member (Figure 8B) are present in any direction opposite to the transmitting/sensing direction of the electromagnetic waves (Figure 1, element 4). It would have been obvious to include Suzuki’s element within Oka’s structure in to provide a product with an additional function element therein.
Regarding Claim 15, Oka shows the structure of claim 1 but does not identify it as a millimeter wave radar module. Suzuki shows that it is known to create a millimeter wave radar module from two joined thermoplastic elements (Abstract; Figure 8B; 0029, 0037, 0048-0049). It would have been obvious to make Suzuki’s millimeter wave radar module with the structure of Oka because there is art recognized suitability for using two polymer layers with varying transmittance/absorbance properties in a millimeter wave radar module (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742