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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on February 19, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 4 are amended; claim 3 is canceled; resulting in claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al. (WO 2023/240030, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Decker et al. teaches a radar transmissive system (100) comprising a substrate layer (102; base layer) and a second layer (106; colored layer) ([0018], Fig. 1), where the substrate layer and second layer together correspond to the claimed laminate. The substrate layer can comprise a radar-transmissive substrate made of a polymer (synthetic resin) such as polycarbonate, polyolefin, or the like [0032]. The thickness (ts) of the substrate layer can be in a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm, such as, for example, 2 mm to 5 mm, 2.5 mm to 4 mm, or 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The ranges taught by Decker et al. for the thickness of the substrate layer overlap with the claimed range or are very close thereto, thus establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Decker et al. further teaches that radar loss can achieve minimal values by simultaneously optimizing the thickness and/or permittivity of the substrate layer and the thickness and/or permittivity of the second layer formed thereon ([0045], [0083]-[0084], Fig. 8). In particular, the radar transmissive system transmits electromagnetic radiation comprising a frequency of 1 GHz to 300 GHz, such as 76 GHz to 81 GHz ([0060]), such that the second layer and the radar transmissive system permit the passage of millimeter waves.
The second layer can comprise a film-forming resin and a filler, such as metal flakes or powders (e.g., aluminum flakes), or the like, wherein use of any of the listed filler materials can generally increase the permittivity of the second layer [0021]. Decker et al. teaches that the filler may be incorporated into the second layer at an appropriate concentration to control the permittivity of the second layer and allow for increased radar transmission [0022]. In particular, Decker et al. teaches that the permittivity of the second layer can be at least 1.5 and no greater than 30 ([0054]), which overlaps the claimed range of 8.0 or greater. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Decker et al. further teaches that the pigment volume concentration of the filler in the second layer may be 0% to 90%, preferably 10% to 20% [0022]. Given that the density of the filler (e.g., metal flakes or powders) is greater than the density of the film-forming resin, when the amount of filler is set to 10-20 vol%, the amount of filler would necessarily fall within the claimed range of 2.0 mass% or greater.
With respect to the limitation requiring that the colored layer is arranged on a front surface of the base layer, it is noted that the claim does not define a frame of reference for what differentiates a front side and a back side of the base layer. Rather, the claim is directed to a two-layered laminate comprising a base layer and a colored layer. As shown in Fig. 1, the second layer (106; colored layer) is arranged on a second surface (102b) of the substrate layer (102; base layer), where the second surface is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed front surface of the base layer.
Regarding claim 2, Decker et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the dry film thickness of the second layer (106; colored layer) can be in a range of 10 µm to 2000 µm ([0049]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Decker et al. teaches a radar transmissive system (100) comprising a substrate layer (102; base layer), a first layer (104), and a second layer (106; colored layer) ([0018], Fig. 1), where the substrate layer, first layer, and second layer together correspond to the claimed laminate. The substrate layer can comprise a radar-transmissive substrate made of a polymer (synthetic resin) such as polycarbonate, polyolefin, or the like [0032]. The thickness (ts) of the substrate layer can be in a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm, such as, for example, 2 mm to 5 mm, 2.5 mm to 4 mm, or 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The ranges taught by Decker et al. for the thickness of the substrate layer overlap with the claimed range or are very close thereto, thus establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Decker et al. further teaches that radar loss can achieve minimal values by simultaneously optimizing the thickness and/or permittivity of the substrate layer and the thickness and/or permittivity of the second layer formed thereon ([0045], [0083]-[0084], Fig. 8). In particular, the radar transmissive system transmits electromagnetic radiation comprising a frequency of 1 GHz to 300 GHz, such as 76 GHz to 81 GHz ([0060]), such that the second layer and the radar transmissive system permit the passage of millimeter waves.
The second layer can comprise a film-forming resin and a filler, such as metal flakes or powders (e.g., aluminum flakes), or the like, wherein use of any of the listed filler materials can generally increase the permittivity of the second layer [0021]. Decker et al. teaches that the filler may be incorporated into the second layer at an appropriate concentration to control the permittivity of the second layer and allow for increased radar transmission [0022]. In particular, Decker et al. teaches that the permittivity of the second layer can be at least 1.5 and no greater than 30 ([0054]), which overlaps the claimed range of 8.0 or greater. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Decker et al. further teaches that the pigment volume concentration of the filler in the second layer may be 0% to 90%, preferably 10% to 20% [0022]. Given that the density of the filler (e.g., metal flakes or powders) is greater than the density of the film-forming resin, when the amount of filler is set to 10-20 vol%, the amount of filler would necessarily fall within the claimed range of 2.0 mass% or greater.
With respect to the limitation reciting “the laminate is a vehicle component that is configured to be included in a vehicle equipped with a millimeter wave radar device that transmits and receives millimeter waves…the laminate is configured to be arranged frontward of the millimeter wave radar device in the transmission direction of the millimeter waves”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed laminate. As shown in Fig. 1, Decker et al. teaches that the laminate comprising the substrate layer (102) and the second layer (106) is configured to be arranged in front of a radar system (108) that transmits and receives electromagnetic radiation (112, 114), for example at a frequency range of 76 GHz to 81 GHz ([0003], [0018], [0062]). Decker et al. further teaches that the substrate layer (102) may be an automotive substrate [0033]. The laminate taught by Decker et al. is therefore capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
With respect to the limitation requiring that the colored layer is arranged on a front surface of the base layer, where the front surface faces away from the millimeter wave radar device, it is noted that Decker et al. illustrates a configuration in which the second layer (106; colored layer) is positioned on a second surface (102b) of the substrate layer (102; base layer), where the second surface is oriented in the receiving direction (112) of electromagnetic radiation rather than in the transmission direction (114) (Fig. 1). Decker et al. further teaches an alternative embodiment in which the second layer (106) may be applied on an opposite side of the substrate layer, such as on top of the first layer (104) [0043]. In this alternative configuration, the second layer is arranged on the first surface (102a; front surface) of the substrate layer that faces away from the radar system (108).
Regarding claim 5, Decker et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above and further teaches that the dry film thickness of the second layer (106; colored layer) can be in a range of 10 µm to 2000 µm ([0049]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui et al. (US 2024/0336788, previously cited) in view of Decker et al. (WO 2023/240030, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Tsutsui et al. teaches a coated article (1; laminate) comprising a substrate (20; base layer) and a coating film (10) formed on an outer surface of the substrate ([0018], see Fig. 1 reproduced below). The substrate is made of a material that hardly adversely affects electromagnetic wave permeability and is excellent in impact resistance and weather resistance, wherein synthetic resin materials such as polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic resin, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin, polycarbonate, and the like can be appropriately selected as the material of the substrate [0040].
PNG
media_image1.png
299
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The coating film has a laminated structure including a primer layer (11), a basecoat layer (12; colored layer), and a topcoat layer (13), wherein the basecoat layer includes a resin material and a pigment, such as aluminum pieces (12a; filler made of metal), which functions as a luster material in order to enhance designability ([0002], [0019], [0025], Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the basecoat layer is arranged on a front surface of the substrate with the primer layer interposed therebetween. Tsutsui et al. further teaches that the coated article (1; laminate) may be a vehicle bumper (vehicle component) which is arranged frontward of a radar device (100), where the front surface of the substrate on which the basecoat layer is provided faces away from the radar device ([0042]-[0043], Fig. 2).
Based on the orientation of the aluminum pieces and the content ratio of the aluminum pieces relative to the resin material in the basecoat layer (P/B), the coating film including the basecoat layer is able to achieve both metallic designability and electromagnetic wave permeability, in particular, permeability to millimeter waves ([0001], [0029]-[0031]). The laminate and the basecoat layer therefore permit the passage of millimeter waves.
With respect to the relative permittivity of the basecoat layer, while it is acknowledged that all of the claimed physical properties are not explicitly recited by Tsutsui et al., the reference teaches all of the claimed features/materials/layers. Therefore, the claimed physical properties, i.e., a relative permittivity of 8.0 or greater, would be inherently achieved by a laminate with all the claimed features/materials/layers. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are obtainable only with the claimed features/layers/materials. Should the Applicant disagree, it is requested that evidence is provided to support their position. See also MPEP 2112, 2112.01 and analogous burden of proof in MPEP 2113.
As evidence that the claimed relative permittivity property is inherent to the coated article taught by Tsutsui et al., the reference teaches that a content ratio of the aluminum pieces relative to the resin material in the basecoat layer (P/B) is preferably 45% or less, wherein Examples 1-5 each disclose a P/B ratio of 28.1% ([0031], Table 1). A P/B ratio of 28.1% is equivalent to a content of filler in the colored layer of about 21.9% (i.e., P/(P+B)), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 2.0 mass% or greater. In looking to the instant specification at paragraphs [0031]-[0032], Fig. 3 is said to indicate that a positive linear relationship exists between the amount of aluminum contained in the colored layer and the relative permittivity of the colored layer, wherein the relative permittivity is 8.0 or greater when the amount of aluminum contained in the colored layer is 4.0%. Given that the amount of aluminum contained in the basecoat layer taught by Tsutsui et al. is significantly greater than the minimum amount shown in the instant specification to correspond to a relative permittivity of 8.0, relative permittivity of the basecoat layer of Tsutsui et al. is presumed to fall within the broadly claimed range of 8.0 or greater.
Although Tsutsui et al. teaches that the substrate is made of a material that hardly adversely affects electromagnetic wave permeability ([0040]), Tsutsui et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference is silent to a thickness of the substrate (20; base layer).
However, in the analogous art of electromagnetic wave transmissive devices, Decker et al. teaches a radar transmissive system (100) comprising a substrate layer (102; base layer), a first layer (104), and a second layer (106; colored layer) ([0018], Fig. 1). Decker et al. teaches that the substrate layer is a radar transmissive substrate, which has a composition and a thickness suitable to transmit electromagnetic radiation at various radar frequencies with minimal, if any, transmission loss [0032]. The thickness (ts) of the substrate layer can be in a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm, such as, for example, 2 mm to 5 mm, 2.5 mm to 4 mm, or 2.5 to 3.5 mm. The ranges taught by Decker et al. for the thickness of the substrate layer overlap with the claimed range or are very close thereto, thus establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Decker et al. further teaches that radar loss can achieve minimal values by simultaneously optimizing the thickness and/or permittivity of the substrate layer and the thickness and/or permittivity of the second layer formed thereon ([0045], [0083]-[0084], Fig. 8).
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 coated article of Tsutsui et al. by setting a thickness of the substrate within the claimed range, as taught by Decker et al., in order to minimize radar transmission loss of the device.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Tsutsui et al. in view of Decker et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 above, and Tsutsui et al. further teaches that a film thickness of the basecoat layer (12; colored layer) is set to 6 µm or less from the viewpoint of improving electromagnetic wave permeability and metallic designability, wherein Examples 3-5 disclose film thicknesses of 3.4 µm, 5.0 µm, and 5.8 µm, respectively ([0034], Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 4 and 5 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 claim 4 in the response filed February 19, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-11 of the remarks filed February 19, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 5-9 that Decker merely broadly discloses a substrate layer thickness of 0.5-10 mm in a vague manner and does not indicate any reason for selecting a specific narrow thickness range, such that Decker does not disclose or suggest that “a thickness of the base layer is between 1.9 mm to 2.3 mm, inclusive,” as recited in claims 1 and 4.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Decker et al. teaches both a broad range for the thickness of the substrate layer of 0.5 mm to 10 mm, as well as narrower exemplary ranges, such as 2 mm to 5 mm, 2.5 mm to 4 mm, and 2.5 mm to 3.5 mm [0051]. The broader ranges of 0.5 to 10 mm and 2 to 5 mm disclosed by Decker et al. overlap the claimed range, while the narrower ranges of 2.5 to 4 mm and 2.5 to 3.5 mm do not overlap but are very close to the claimed range. The ranges disclosed by Decker et al. are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range absent a persuasive showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to the Applicant’s argument that Decker et al. does not indicate any reason for selecting a specific narrow thickness range, it is noted that paragraph [0045] of Decker et al., in reference to Fig. 8, explains that the radar loss of the radar transmissive system (100) can achieve minimal values by optimizing the thickness and permittivity of the substrate layer (102; base layer) while simultaneously tuning the thickness and permittivity of the second layer (106; colored layer). As shown in Fig. 8 and explained in [0083]-[0084] of Decker et al., the one-way radar transmission loss (OWRTL) is a sinusoidal function of the substrate layer thickness which also depends substantially on the thickness and permittivity of the second layer. For example, as shown in Fig. 8, local minima on the OWRTL vs. substrate thickness graph are present around 1.2 mm and 2.5 mm, where the transmission loss values are relatively low at substrate thicknesses of about ± 0.5 mm from each local minima. Based on the teachings of Decker et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the materials and thicknesses of the substrate and second layers affect where the local minima occur, such that the optimal substrate thicknesses can be readily adjusted by selecting combinations of different materials for the substrate layer and the second layer or by increasing or decreasing the thickness of the second layer. Decker et al. therefore teaches that a specific narrow thickness range can be selected for the purpose of achieving low one-way radar transmission loss and further provides substantial guidance as to how the optimal thickness ranges can be determined.
The Applicant further argues that any prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed range is rebutted by the showing that a thickness of the base layer being between 1.9 and 2.3 mm is a critical range. In particular, the Applicant argues on pages 6-8 that the claimed range for the base layer thickness of 1.9 mm or more and 2.3 mm or less has critical significance, as the laminate can suppress the attenuation of millimeter waves during transmission therethrough to 1 dB or less, regardless of the color of the colored layer, when the thickness of the base layer is set within the claimed range, citing annotated Fig. 4 of the present invention.
These arguments are not persuasive. The data provided by the Applicant in the form of annotated Fig. 4 on page 7 of the remarks is insufficient to establish the criticality of the claimed range of 1.9 to 2.3 mm for the thickness of the base layer. First, it is noted that the Applicant’s remarks cite an attenuation of millimeter waves of 1 dB as a “required condition” for transmitting millimeter waves; however, in looking to the instant specification at paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Fig. 5, the attenuation amount of 0.85 dB is said to be a “requested value”, which is understood to refer to a threshold value set as a design parameter. Fig. 4 is shown below annotated with a dotted line to show the threshold attenuation value of -0.85 dB, where the thickness values of 1.9 and 2.3 mm are shown as corresponding to a higher attenuation value of about 0.9 dB, outside of the design parameter set forth in the instant specification, when the colored layer E is used.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on the above analysis, it is clear that the permissible range of thicknesses for the base layer can be set depending upon the threshold value of an attenuation amount required for a particular use of the laminate. For example, when a lower attenuation amount is required, the optimal range of thickness values falls within a narrower range as compared to a case where a less stringent threshold for the attenuation amount is set. These findings are expected based upon the teachings of Decker et al., in particular, the graph of thickness vs. transmission loss shown in Fig. 8.
Furthermore, it is noted that the Applicant’s arguments regarding the criticality of the 1.9 to 2.3 mm range are only directed to the attenuation amount of the colored layer E shown in annotated Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 3 of the present invention, colored layer A contains about 4 mass% of aluminum filler, while colored layer E contains about 14 mass% of aluminum filler. Based on the curves corresponding to colored layers A and E in Fig. 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the optimal base layer thickness depends upon the amount (and type) of filler contained in the colored layer.
Given that the claim only broadly recites that the amount of filler contained in the colored layer is 2.0 mass% or greater, it is clear that the thickness of the base layer is not limited to the range of 1.9 to 2.3 mm in order to achieve optimal attenuation values within a desired range of 1 dB or less, or 0.85 dB or less. When the amount of filler included in the colored layer is small, the permissible range of thicknesses for the base layer is broader, and particularly encompasses larger values on the upper end. For example, Fig. 4 indicates that the optimal thickness for the base layer when the colored layer contains about 4 mass% of aluminum filler is 2.35 mm, where thicknesses of greater than 2.7 mm can be used while maintaining an attenuation below 0.85 dB. Therefore, the arguments directed to the criticality of the claimed range of 1.9 to 2.3 mm are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, as they only pertain to a specific embodiment in which the color layer contains aluminum as the material of the filler, and contains the aluminum filler in an amount of about 14 mass%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsushi (US 2024/0116279) teaches a layered structure (100) for an automobile emblem comprising a first member (11) provided on an inside, a second member (12) provided on an outside, and a design layer (14) provided between the first and second members ([0121], Fig. 2). Mitsushi et al. teaches that from the viewpoint of appearance and formability, the thickness of each of the first and second members is within the range of 1.5 to 6 mm, preferably from 1.8 to 4.5 mm ([0078], [0089]).
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