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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on September 17, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 2, and 4 are amended; claim 5 is new; resulting in claims 1-5 pending for examination.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (JP 2021-028621, machine translation previously provided) in view of Caruso et al. (WO 2021/018422, newly cited), Taguchi et al. (US 2019/0135951, previously cited), and Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0227663, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose et al. teaches an emblem (13; millimeter wave transmissive decoration) comprising a front base material (14; plastic layer), a rear base material (25), and a decorative layer (35) ([0030], Figs. 1-4). The decorative layer includes a first colored decorative layer (36) and a second colored decorative layer (37; white plastic layer), wherein the second colored decorative layer is formed by a resin material such as a polycarbonate (PC) resin containing a white pigment ([0040], [0042]). The second colored decorative layer, either alone or in combination with the first colored decorative layer, can be taken to correspond to the claimed decorative layer. As shown in Fig. 3, the front base material (14) is in contact with the second colored decorative layer (37).
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “employed in a vehicle equipped with a millimeter wave radar device that emits and receives millimeter waves” and the limitation reciting “configured to be arranged forward of the millimeter wave radar device in an emission direction of the millimeter waves”, these limitations are considered functional language related to an intended use of the millimeter wave transmissive decoration. Hirose et al. does, however, further teach that the emblem (13) is arranged in front of a millimeter wave radar device (11) which transmits millimeter waves (12) and which is mounted as an on-vehicle sensor to the front portion of a vehicle (10) ([0026], [0029]). The emblem taught by Hirose et al. is capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus meeting the claimed functional limitations.
Hirose et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a thickness of the second colored decorative layer in the emission direction.
Caruso et al. teaches a decorative radome comprising a radio-transmissive substrate made of a synthetic polymer such as ABS, PBT, PC, PET, or the like [0058]. Caruso et al. teaches that the optimal thickness of the radio-transmissive substrate can influence the attenuation of a traversing radio wave ([0062], [0064]). As the decorative radome can be used with radar systems, which emit frequencies between 76 and 81 GHz, the optimal thickness of a polycarbonate substrate is a multiple of about 1.15 mm, such as about 1.15 mm, 2.3 mm, or 2.45 mm, where the optimal thickness will be dependent on the wavelength of the radio wave and the dielectric permittivity of the substrate ([0065], [0068], Figs. 8 and 10). In some embodiments, the radio-transmissive substrate is between 2 mm and 2.6 mm thick, where this thickness provides advantages with respect to weight, cost, moldability, and resilience ([0064], [0264]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the thickness of the second colored decorative layer through routine experimentation, especially given the teachings in Caruso et al. regarding the desire to adjust the thickness of a radio-transmissive polymer layer, such as within the approximate range of 1.15 mm, in order to optimize the radio wave transmission properties to minimize attenuation while also maintaining desirable physical properties such as moldability and resilience. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Although Hirose et al. teaches that the second colored decorative layer is colored white by containing a white pigment ([0048]), the reference does not expressly teach that the second colored decorative layer contains particles of titanium dioxide having a rutile crystal structure, or an L value of the second colored decorative layer.
Taguchi et al. teaches a laminate having good whiteness, comprising a white layer formed using a white pigment such as titanium oxide ([0067], [0081]). Taguchi et al. teaches that the content of the white pigment in the white layer is preferably 1% to 75% by mass and can be adjusted within the range to obtain good whiteness, wherein the white layer has an L* value of 35 to 100 in a L*a*b* color coordinate system, preferably 60 or more ([0067]-[0068], [0075]). The titanium oxide used as the white pigment is preferably a rutile type titanium oxide, which is preferred for its coloring property and good stability in that it has a small change in color difference even with heating [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emblem of Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al. by selecting titanium oxide having a rutile crystal structure as the white pigment particles and by setting an L value of the second colored decorative layer within the claimed range, as taught by Taguchi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select rutile type TiO2 for its good temperature stability and coloring property and to include the TiO2 particles at a content sufficient to achieve the desired degree of whiteness, such as an L value within the claimed range. Moreover, with respect to the claimed L value, it is well settled that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Although Hirose et al. teaches that the emblem is designed so as to suppress attenuation of millimeter waves (i.e., such that millimeter waves are effectively transmitted through the emblem) ([0031], [0036], [0043], [0046], [0053]), the reference does not expressly teach a relative permittivity of the white plastic layer.
Suzuki et al. teaches a millimeter-wave radar mounted on an automobile and comprising an antenna and a radome or radar covering enclosing the antenna (Abstract, [0007]). The dielectric constant of the radome or radar cover is made higher in a portion corresponding to a side of the antenna than in a portion corresponding to the front of the antenna (Abstract, [0011]). For example, a part of the radome which corresponds to the front of the antenna may use a material that can transmit radio waves without any loss (dielectric constant of 3.0 or less; e.g., polycarbonate; at 76.5 GHz) ([0011], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emblem of Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al. and Taguchi et al. by setting a dielectric constant (i.e., relative permittivity) of the white plastic layer within the claimed range, as suggested by Suzuki et al., in order to ensure that millimeter waves can pass through the emblem without significant loss.
Regarding claim 2, Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al., Taguchi et al., and Suzuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach an additive rate of the titanium oxide within the white plastic layer. However, given that titanium dioxide is known to have a relatively high dielectric constant of at least about 80, as compared to the low dielectric constant of polycarbonate of about 3.0, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of the additive rate of the titanium oxide particles in the white plastic layer, given the teachings in Hirose et al. and Taguchi et al. regarding the desire to achieve a white colored layer with a high L value, and given the teachings in Hirose et al., Caruso et al., and Suzuki et al. regarding the desire to ensure high transmission of radio waves with minimal loss. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al., Taguchi et al., and Suzuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Hirose et al. teaches that the front base material (14; plastic layer, transparent plastic layer) is in contact with the front surface of the second colored decorative layer (37; white plastic layer) (Fig. 3). Hirose et al. further teaches that the front base material is transparently formed of a resin material such as polycarbonate (PC) resin [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al., Taguchi et al., and Suzuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Hirose et al. further teaches that the decorative layer (35) includes a bright decorative layer (38) and may include a press coating layer (39) in addition to the first and second decorative colored layers (36, 37) [0040]. The bright decorative layer may be applied to the entire bottom wall surface (23), as shown in Figs. 3-4, or it may be formed in a discontinuous structure such that it is applied only in the areas where the first and second colored decorative layers are formed ([0043]-[0044], [0067]). Hirose et al. further teaches that the press coating layer is not essential and can be omitted [0068].
In the configuration where the bright decorative layer is applied only in the areas where the first and second decorative layers are formed and the press coating layer is omitted, the rear base material (25; base layer) is in contact with a rear surface of the second colored decoration layer (37; white plastic layer). Hirose et al. teaches that the rear base material is made of a resin material with a small dielectric loss tangent, such as acrylonitrile-ethylene-styrene copolymer [0036].
Regarding claim 5, Hirose et al. in view of Caruso et al., Taguchi et al., and Suzuki et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above with respect to claim 1, the second colored decorative layer (37), either alone or in combination with the first colored decorative layer, can be taken to correspond to the claimed decorative layer. The second colored decorative layer on its own satisfies all of the limitations directed to the claimed decorative layer, such that an entirety of the decorative layer is considered to be formed by the second colored decorative layer.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, and 4 in the response filed September 17, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks filed September 17, 2025, with respect to the previous rejections based on Renaud et al. in view of Taguchi et al. and Huber et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, in light of the receipt of the English translation of the foreign priority document, the claim to foreign priority is perfected in the instant application, and Renaud et al. (WO 2023/198458) and Huber et al. (US 2025/0019552) are no longer eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above. In light of the amendments to claim 1, Caruso et al. is used as a secondary reference in combination with Hirose et al., Taguchi et al., and Suzuki et al. to address the limitation requiring that the thickness in the emission direction of the white plastic layer is greater than or equal to 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 2.0 mm.
Applicant's arguments, see page 11 of the remarks, with respect to newly added claim 5 are not persuasive. In particular, with respect to the new limitation reciting “wherein an entirety of the decorative layer is formed by the white plastic layer”, the Applicant argues that in contrast to new claim 5, Hirose discloses that the decorative layer (35) is formed by a first colored decorative layer (36), a second colored decorative layer (37), a bright decorative layer (38), and a press coating layer (39), such that in Hirose, the entire decorative layer (35) is not formed by the second colored decorative layer (37).
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the rejection of claim 5 above, the second colored decorative layer (37) on its own is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed decorative layer. It is noted that the claim uses open language to indicate that the layers of the millimeter wave transmissive decoration “include” a decorative layer. The transitional term “including” is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03(I). Therefore, while the decorative layer (35) of Hirose et al. may include additional layers such as a first colored decorative layer (36), a bright decorative layer (38), and a press coating layer (39), these layers are not excluded by the current language of the claim. The second colored decorative layer (37) alone satisfies all of the limitations directed to the claimed decorative layer which is formed entirely by the white plastic layer.
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785