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 § 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, and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0307112), in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0227663). Regarding Claim 1, 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 which comprises an electrically conductive carbon compound at 0.15 mass percent (member II; 0232, 0238, 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)). Suzuki et al., hereafter “Suzuki,” shows that it is known to use carbon nanotubes as electrically conductive carbon 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 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 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 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)).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Oka does not show or suggest the claimed invention because applicant disagrees that it would not have been obvious to optimize or choose the particular values which are held to be obvious. This is not persuasive because there has been no evidence of new and unexpected results, and applicant’s arguments cannot take place of evidence in the record. It is maintained that 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)).
Applicant contends that Oka does not show or suggest the claimed invention because Oka is not analogous art to the present application which focuses on transmittance and absorption of millimeter-wave radar. This is not persuasive because this limitation is not required except for in the preamble of claim 15, for which Oka and Suzuki are cited to show as a combination. Further, it is maintained that Oka is analogous art in terms of being applicable to a structure which is relevant to the transmittance and absorption of laser beams.
Applicant disagrees with the combination of Oka and Suzuki to suggest the claimed invention and cites features of the present disclosure such as being capable of simultaneously achieving various function/control capabilities. This is not persuasive because these features are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Further, the examiner notes that the current claims are drawn to articles, which are limited by their structure and not their intended use.
Applicant contends that Suzuki does not teach how to control the millimeter band absorbance and/or transmittance of a thermoplastic resin. This is not persuasive because this is not claimed, and Suzuki is not cited to teach this limitation. It is maintained that Suzuki shows the inclusion of carbon nanotubes as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights