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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-121074, filed on 07/21/2021 and parent Application No. PCT/JP2022/028280, filed on 07/20/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamagata et al. (US 11266048 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yamagata discloses
An electromagnetic shield (see Fig. 1, electromagnetic absorber 1a) comprising:
a plate-shaped base having a first surface and a second surface (see Fig. 1, surfaces 10 and 20; Fig. 2, above view of absorber from Fig. 1 with plate shape), the first surface being configured to allow an electromagnetic wave to be incident on the first surface (see col. 4, lines 16-19, “The electromagnetic wave absorber 1a is designed so that when an electromagnetic wave having a wavelength (λ.sub.O) to be absorbed is incident on the electromagnetic wave absorber 1a”), the second surface being distant from the first surface and extending along the first surface; and
projecting strip portions projecting from the first surface in a direction away from the second surface (see Fig. 1, blocks 17), wherein
the electromagnetic shield includes a dielectric (see Fig. 1, dielectric layer 30),
the electromagnetic shield has a space forming either a gap or a hole (see Fig. 1, slits 15), and
the gap or the hole is in contact with the projecting strip portion along a direction intersecting with a longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion (see Fig. 2, slits 15 are in contact with blocks 17).
Regarding claim 2, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein the space has an opening at an end portion of the space in a projecting direction of the projecting strip portion (see Fig. 1 and Fig 2, depths and layouts of slits 15 and blocks 17).
Regarding claim 3, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
the projecting strip portions include a pair of projecting strip portions arranged in the longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion (see Fig. 2, arrangement of blocks 17), and
the space is present between the pair of projecting strip portions (see Fig. 2, slits 15 between blocks 17).
Regarding claim 4, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 2, wherein a maximum dimension of the space in the longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion is more than 1 mm (see col. 9, lines 42-44, “each of the blocks of the resistive layer divided by the slit has a minimum dimension of 2 mm or more”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein the space forms a through hole in the projecting strip portion (see Figs. 1 and 2, sections 15 form a depth in layer 10 reaching layer 30).
Regarding claim 6, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 5, wherein a maximum dimension of the through hole in the longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion is 3 mm or more (see col. 3, lines 52-54, “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the first blocks 17 has a minimum dimension D1 of 2 mm or more at the principal surface 10a.”).
Regarding claim 7, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 5, wherein a maximum dimension of the through hole in a projecting direction of the projecting strip portion is 3 mm or more (see col. 4, lines 41-42, “The depth of the first slit 15 in a thickness direction of the electromagnetic wave absorber 1a is not particularly limited.”).
Regarding claim 8, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein when the electromagnetic shield is disposed such that the projecting strip portion projects in a horizontal direction and extends along the horizontal direction, one end of the space is positioned above the other end of the space (see Fig. 2, blocks 17 arranged in horizontal directions; Fig. 6, example diagram of absorber 1a on top of article 70a).
Regarding claim 9, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of the projecting strip portions arranged parallel to each other (see Fig. 2, blocks 17),
the electromagnetic shield has a plurality of the spaces (see Fig. 2, slits 15), and
each of the projecting strip portions is in contact with at least one of the spaces (see Fig. 2, blocks 17 and slits 15 are in contact).
Regarding claim 10, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 9, wherein a distance between the projecting strip portions adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion is greater than a dimension of the space in the longitudinal direction of the projecting strip portion (see col. 4, lines 41-42, “The depth of the first slit 15 in a thickness direction of the electromagnetic wave absorber 1a is not particularly limited.”; col. 4, lines 35-38, “The minimum dimension D1 of each of the first blocks 17 at the first principal surface 10a is desirably 4 mm or more, more desirably 6 mm or more, and even more desirably 10 mm or more.”).
Regarding claim 11, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 9, wherein the spaces are arranged on a straight line (see Fig. 1, slits 15 are in a straight line).
Regarding claim 12, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
at least one selected from the group consisting of the electromagnetic shield and the base is a ring-shaped body (see Fig. 6, absorber 1a can be curved) and has a polygonal or circular outer perimeter when the first surface is viewed along an axis of the ring-shaped body (see Fig. 2, rectangular perimeter),
the electromagnetic shield further includes a contact portion configured to be in contact with a component other than the electromagnetic shield (see Fig.8, absorber 1c can be in contact with article 70c), and
the contact portion abuts on the outer perimeter (see Fig. 8, absorber 1c in contact with article 70c).
Regarding claim 16, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein an imaginary part ɛ" of a relative permittivity of the dielectric at at least one frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz is 0.1 or less (see col. 5, equation 1, imaginary permittivity is zero).
Regarding claim 17, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein a real part ɛ' of a relative permittivity of the dielectric at at least one frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz is 2.0 to 4.0 (see col. 8, lines 16-17, “The dielectric layer 30 is formed of, for example, a polymer sheet having a relative permittivity of 1 to 20”).
Regarding claim 18, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ (see col. 1, lines 39-40, “λ is a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave to be absorbed”),
and a projection length P of at least one of the projecting strip portions satisfies a requirement 0.25λ≤ P<1.3λ (see col. 3, lines 52-54, “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the first blocks 17 has a minimum dimension D1 of 2 mm or more at the principal surface 10a.”).
Regarding claim 19, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ (see col. 1, lines 39-40, “λ is a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave to be absorbed”), and
a width W of at least one of the projecting strip portions satisfies a requirement 0.51λ≤W≤1.6λ (see col. 3, lines 52-54, “As shown in FIG. 2, each of the first blocks 17 has a minimum dimension D1 of 2 mm or more at the principal surface 10a.”).
Regarding claim 20, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 1, wherein
the electromagnetic shield is capable of shielding against an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength λ (see col. 1, lines 39-40, “λ is a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave to be absorbed”), and
a distance D between the projecting strip portions satisfies a requirement 0.51λ≤D≤1.6λ (see cols. 13 and 14, the slits may be cut at various intervals; col. 4, lines 49-51, “The first slit 15 may be formed so that a clearance is present between the first blocks 17 adjacent to each other”).
Regarding claim 21, Yamagata further discloses
A radar cover comprising the electromagnetic shield according to claim 1 (see Fig. 8, absorber 1c is covered by article 70c).
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.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata et al. (US 11266048 B2) in view of Ding et al. (US 10074907 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Yamagata discloses [Note: what Yamagata fails to disclose is strike-through]
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 12, wherein
at least one selected from the group consisting of the electromagnetic shield and the base is a hollow body (see Fig. 1, slits 15 create hollowness among surface 10)
the first surface is an inner surface of the hollow body being the electromagnetic shield or the base (see Fig. 1, slits 15 create an inner surface of layer 10), and
the second surface is an outer surface of the hollow body being the electromagnetic shield or the base (see Fig. 1, lower surface layer 20).
Ding discloses
whose outer shape is a truncated pyramidal shape, a truncated conical shape, or a truncated elliptical conical shape and which has an opening in each of positions in the outer shape, the positions corresponding to an upper base and a lower base of a truncated pyramid, a truncated cone, or a truncated elliptic cone (see col. 10, lines 31-33, “the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape”),
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ding into the invention of Yamagata. Both Yamagata and Ding are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar shield devices for automotive use. Yamagata discloses a hollow body, a first surface being an inner surface, and a second surface being an outer surface; however, Yamagata fails to disclose pyramidal or conical shapes. This feature is disclosed by Ding where the electromagnetic shield elements can be pyramid or cone shaped. The combination of Yamagata and Ding would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to keep manufacturing costs low by using preexisting shaped molds for apparatus manufacturing, and to “maximize the scattering effect for the multipath signal at the operating frequency band” (see Ding col. 10, lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 14, Yamagata further discloses
The electromagnetic shield according to claim 13, wherein the projecting strip portions project in a direction perpendicular to the lower base (see Fig. 1, blocks 17 are perpendicular to lower base surface 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648