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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2026.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pallone, US 2005/0184827 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Pallone teaches a method to prevent, reduce or eliminate passive intermodulation interference (PIM) associated with an apparatus comprising the step:
coating a substrate with a nylon material, wherein passive intermodulation interference associated with the apparatus is prevented, reduced or eliminated (where an insulator 8 is applied between the mobile radioelectric coupling means 5 and the transmission lines 2, 3 of the phasing element 1 so as to avoid any contact between two metal portions not interconnected to one another so as to not give rise to the passive intermodulation phenomenon, where the insulator is nylon, 0051 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, they provide coating a substrate with nylon so as to prevent, reduce, or eliminate PIM.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaistha, US 2020/0185827 A1 in view of Pallone, US 2005/0184827 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kaistha teaches a method to prevent, reduce or eliminate passive intermodulation interference (PIM) associated with an apparatus (antenna mount assemblies and methods for reducing external passive intermodulation from an antenna mount kit, abstract) comprising the step:
coating a substrate with a non-metallic material, wherein passive intermodulation interference associated with the apparatus is prevented, reduced or eliminated (where a metallic mount kit is encapsulated with a PIM-friendly coating, e.g. a non-conductive material to reduce metal-to-metal contacts and PIM, 0030, 0042).
They teach cladding the antenna mount kit with a glass reinforced resin, polyurethane, or urethane coating, powder coating, or paint to eliminate the metal-to-metal interface (0042).
They teach using a polymeric material such as nylon in other portion of the mounts as non-metallic materials as alternatives to acetal, polypropylene, polyethylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene (0033 and 0039).
They do not specifically teach using nylon as the coating material.
As discussed above, Pallone teaches coating a substrate with nylon to prevent metal-to-metal contact and PIM.
From the teachings of Pallone, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used nylon as the coating material because Pallone teaches that nylon is a suitable non-metallic material for preventing metal-to-metal contact and PIM and Kaistha indicates that nylon is a suitable non-conductive material used in the antenna mount kit such that it will be expected to be a desirable non-conductive material for preventing metal-to-metal contact and PIM. Therefore, the substrate will be coated with nylon to as to prevent, reduce, or eliminate PIM.
Regarding claim 7, Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1. Kaistha teaches that there a variety of metallic (e.g., stainless steel) components that are used to secure antennas to telecommunications towers (e.g., antenna mounts ) (0003). They teach that the metal components can be a source of unwanted PIM (0003). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used stainless steel for the metal components in the antenna mount kit because Kaistha teaches that such a metal is currently used in such mounts, suggesting that it will be a suitable material for the non-conductive coating in preventing PIM.
Claims 2-4, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aquitaine, FR 2097627 A5.
The following citations for Aquitaine, FR 2097627 A1 are in reference to the machine translation provide by Espacenet.
Regarding claims 2-4, Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach coating using the claimed process.
Aquitaine teaches a method of coating metallic surfaces with powders of a polymer composition (pg. 1). They teach that conventionally a metal part to be coated is previously brought to a temperature higher than the melting temperature of the coating to be applied and is immersed in a powder maintained in a fluidized state so that the metal part is covered with a liquid coating made up of powder which melts upon contact and solidifies shortly afterwards (pg. 1-2). They teach an improved process for coating metallic surfaces with powders of a polymer composition in which an electrostatic charge is imparted to said powder with a polarity opposite to that of the metallic surface, where the assembly is brought to a temperature slightly above the metaling temperature of the powder and then the assembly is brought back to room temperature, where the powder consists of a polymer composition containing from 0.01% to 1% of powdered zinc oxide (pg. 2). They teach that the polymer composition is formed mainly of polyamide (pg. 2). They provide an example where a sheet is placed in an oven maintained at a temperature of 2200°C, where the coating quickly melts since the melting point of the powder is 1850°C (pg. 3). They teach removing the sheet after 4-5 minutes so that the coating solidifies rapidly in the ambient air (pg. 3). They teach that their process allows for increased adhesion of polymer powders to metallic surfaces and leads to perfectly uniform coatings (pg. 2).
From the teachings of Aquitaine, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated the substrate using the method of Aquitaine because they teach that their process allows for increased adhesion of polymer powders to metallic surfaces and leads to perfectly uniform coatings such that it will be expected to successfully coat the metal substrate with the nylon material as desired, where since they teach that the process uses polyamide and nylon is a polyamide it is expected to also successfully work for nylon. Therefore, the substrate will be heated to a temperature above the melting point of the nylon and then contacted with the nylon material so as to result in the coated temperature. Therefore, the temperature of the substrate will overlap the range of claim 2 so as to be above the melting temperature of nylon. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
While they do not teach the specific temperature ranges for the process, since they suggest heating the substrate to a temperature above the melting range of the coating material, where they provide an example of heating 350°C above the melting temperature of a coating, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within the claimed range from the overlapping range so as to melt the polymer material on the substrate surface for forming a desirable coating without decomposing or thermally degrading the coating.
According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above Pallone in view of Aquitaine or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine suggest the features of claim 15, wherein the temperature overlaps or is optimized to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine suggest the features of claim 15. As discussed above for claim 7, Kaistha provides the suggestion of using stainless steel as the substrate.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 18 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone in view of Aquitaine or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui, US 2022/0408618 A1 as evidenced by Chanda, “Plastics Technology Handbook”, 2018.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Pallone in view of Aquitaine or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine suggest the process of claim 2, where Aquitaine teaches heating the substrate to a temperature of 350°C above the material melting point.
They do not teach the specific melting temperatures used for nylon.
Matsui teaches a multi-layer sheet with excellent electromagnetic wave shielding properties for use in telecommunications (abstract and 0069). They each that the sheets include a substrates comprising flexible organic polymer materials (0023). They teach that preferred flexible organic polymer materials are thermoplastic resins especially from the viewpoint of good sheet processability and film formation properties (0028). They teach that examples include polyolefin resins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, etc., polyamide resins such as nylon 6, nylon 11, nylon 12, and nylon 66, etc., polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) resins, etc. (0028).
From the teachings of Matsui, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Nylon 11 as the nylon or polyamide material because Matsui teaches that it provides good sheet processability and film formation properties, where Pallone teaches using nylon or Teflon and Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest using nylon such that it will be expected to provide a suitable nylon for the process while also providing good sheet processability and film formation properties.
As evidenced by Chanda, nylon 11 has a melt temperature of 188°C (pg. 1) or about 370.4°F, such that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated the substrate to a temperature of greater than about 370.4°F so as to coat the melted nylon 11 material to the substrate surface. Therefore, they suggest heating the substrate to a temperature overlapping the claimed range for forming the melt coating process. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Further, according to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within or meet the claimed range so as to provide a desirable melt coating process in the absence of a showing indicating that the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claim 15, Pallone in view of Aquitaine or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine suggest the process of claim 15, where Aquitaine teaches heating the substrate to a temperature of 350°C above the material melting point.
As discussed above, Masuda as evidenced by Chanda further suggest using nylon 11 and heating to a temperature of greater than about 370.4°F so as to coat the melted nylon 11 material to the substrate surface, so as to overlap the claimed range, where it is further suggested to optimize the temperature to be within the claimed range by routine experimentation. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Kaistha in view of Pallone, Aquitaine, and Masuda as evidenced by Changa suggest the features of claim 15. As discussed above for claim 7, Kaistha provides the suggestion of using stainless steel as the substrate.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanada, JP H1190313 A.
The following citations for Hanada, JP H1190313 A are in reference of the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1. Kaistha teaches that there a variety of metallic (e.g., stainless steel) components that are used to secure antennas to telecommunications towers (e.g., antenna mounts ) (0003). They teach that the metal components can be a source of unwanted PIM (0003). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used stainless steel for the metal components in the antenna mount kit because Kaistha teaches that such a metal is currently used in such mounts.
They do not teach cleaning the surface as required by claims 5 and 6.
Hanada teaches a method for accelerating the hardening of a coating agent when preventing rust on steel pipes (0001). They teach that conventionally, when packaging steel pipes, a rust inhibitor or other coating agent was applied directly to the surface of the steel pipe and then the pipes were either dried or allowed to cool naturally or immediately bundled and packaged after the coating agent was applied (0002). They teach that with the conventional methods, when applying a coating agent, moisture and oils adhere to the surface of the steel pipe, causing the coating agent to peel off, making it difficult to form a uniform coating layer (0003). They provide a method for accelerating the hardening of an external coating agent, in which the entire surface of the steel pipe is first directly heated with a burner flame to a temperature of 100°C or higher, and then the coating agent is applied to the pipe when the outer surface of the temperature reaches 50°C to 70°C (0006). They teach that excess moisture, dust, and grease adhering to the surface of the steel pipe are burned off and removed, while the hardening of the coating agent is accelerated (0006). They teach that the method removes factors that adversely affect the coating, such as moisture, dust, and oils, using the burner flame, preventing the coating agent from peeling off (0017).
From the teachings of Hanada, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first heated the substrate to a temperature of greater than 100°C (212°F) to burn off moisture, dust, and grease from the surface of the metal or steel substrate because Hanada teaches that such a method is suitable for removing any moisture, dust, or grease from a steel surface prior to coating so as to prevent peeling of a coating material such that it will also be expected to prime the metal or steel surface for coating of the PIM-preventing nylon layer while preventing it from peeling off. Therefore, they suggest heating to a temperature overlapping the claimed range. Further, since they suggest heating to burn off moisture, dust, and grease, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within the claimed range so as to provide the desired result, i.e., burning off oil or grease, etc.. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell, US 2021/0380847 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Pallone teaches and Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach the thickness of the nylon coating.
Bell teaches materials and methods for mitigating passive intermodulation (abstract). They teach a membrane for reducing passive intermodulation that includes a first polymeric layer, a second polymeric layer, and a continuous metal layer encapsulated between the first and second polymeric layers (abstract). They teach that the barrier reduces the RF energy reaching PIM sources to reduce the magnitude of PIM generated by PIM sources (0032). They teach that the materials used to construct the barrier should not contain loose metal-to-metal contacts and should be installable in a way that prevents loose metal-to-metal contacts from being formed (0034). They teach that the membrane includes polymeric layers 702 and 703 that include TPO, EPDM, PVC, or another suitable polymer (0039). They teach that the polymer layers each have a thickness of between 0.001 and 0.1 inches (1 to 100 mils) (0039). Therefore, Bell teaches encapsulating a metal layer with a polymer having a thickness of 1 to 100 mils for a PIM mitigation barrier, where the barrier is designed to be installable in a way to prevent loose metal-to-metal contacts, suggesting the that thickness of the polymer layers is suitable to prevent metal-to-metal contact with the encapsulated layer.
From the teachings of Bell, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a nylon layer having a thickness of 1 to 100 mils because Bell teaches that such a polymer thickness is suitable in a PIM barrier designed to be installable in a way to prevent loose metal-to-metal contacts, suggesting the that thickness of the polymer layers is suitable to prevent metal-to-metal contact with the encapsulated layer such that it will be expected to provide a suitable thickness for preventing metal-to-metal contact and reduce PIM. Therefore, the thickness overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Alternatively, since they teach/suggest applying the nylon layer so as to reduce PIM, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness to be within the claimed range so as to provide the desired effect because PIM is caused by metal-to-metal contact and the thicker the nylon layer, the better to prevent metal-to-metal contact such that the thickness will be expected to be an optimizable property so as to provide the desired result. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone or Kaistha in view of Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui, US 2022/0408618 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Pallone teaches and Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach using nylon 11.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Matsui, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Nylon 11 as the nylon or polyamide material because Matsui teaches that it provides good sheet processability and film formation properties, where Pallone teaches using nylon or Teflon and Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest using nylon such that it will be expected to provide a suitable nylon for the process while also providing good sheet processability and film formation properties.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu, US 2021/0298169 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Pallone teaches the process of claim 1. They teach that the phasing element includes an input transmission line and an output transmission line, the lines being printed lines placed at the surface of a printed circuit board (abstract).
They do not teach the pass range of the coated substrate.
Wu teaches a resin composition, a prepreg, and a printed circuit board (abstract). They teach that the resin composition is used to form a dielectric substrate layer (abstract). They teach that to meet the demands of high frequency transmission, the dielectric substrate needs to have a low dielectric constant, a low dielectric loss, and a low passive intermodulation (0004). They teach that a passive intermodulation of the dielectric substrate layer is lower than or equal to -155 dBc (0022). They teach that as an electrical signal passes through the dielectric substrate layer of the disclosure, signal interference is less likely to occur as a result of the materials used (0061).
From the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the nylon layer on the substrate such that the PIM is lower than or equal to -155 dBc because Wu teaches that such a PIM range is suitable for a dielectric layer in a PCB for preventing signal interference. Therefore, the pass range of the substrate will overlap the claimed range. Further, since they provide the process of claim 1, the resulting product is also expected to be within the claimed pass range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaistha in view of Pallone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larson, US 2017/0373386 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Kaistha in view of Pallone suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach the pass range of the coated substrate.
Larson teaches a system having a concealed communications element like a telecommunication antenna (abstract). They teach that the communications element is concealed by a highly reflective multilayer polymer optical film (abstract). They teach that the multilayer polymer optical film can also be designed not to generated new frequency components when high power wireless signals are transmitted through the film (0074). They teach that this non-linear phenomenon, known as passive intermodulation distortion (PIM), occurs when two or more frequencies mix together to produce sum and difference frequencies and can be detrimental to the performance of a communication system (0074). They teach that for an antenna covered or partially covered by the multilayer polymer optical film of the present invention, the PIM rating of the antenna remains largely unchanged (0074). They teach that the PIM rating of the film covered antenna measured to be less than -140dBc such that the film can be suitable for use in communications systems transmitting high power (0074).
From the teachings of Larson, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the nylon coating on the antenna mount such that the PIM is less than -140 dBc because Larson teaches that such a range is suitable for a polymer coated antenna for high power applications such that it will also be expected to provide a suitable PIM for the nylon coated antenna mount kit. Therefore, the PIM pass range will overlap the claimed range. Further, since they provide the process of claim 1, the resulting product is also expected to be within the claimed pass range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone in view of Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bell, US 2021/0380847 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Pallone in view of Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda suggest the process of claim 15.
They do not teach the thickness of the nylon coating.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Bell, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a nylon layer having a thickness of 1 to 100 mils because Bell teaches that such a polymer thickness is suitable in a PIM barrier designed to be installable in a way to prevent loose metal-to-metal contacts, suggesting the that thickness of the polymer layers is suitable to prevent metal-to-metal contact with the encapsulated layer such that it will be expected to provide a suitable thickness for preventing metal-to-metal contact and reduce PIM. Therefore, the thickness overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Alternatively, since they teach/suggest applying the nylon layer so as to reduce PIM, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness to be within the claimed range so as to provide the desired effect because the PIM is caused by metal-to-metal contact and the thicker the nylon layer, the better to prevent metal-to-metal contact such that the thickness will be expected to be an optimizable property so as to provide the desired result. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Pallone in view of Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda or Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda suggest the process of claim 15.
Aquitaine further teaches removing the sheet from the coating process after 4-5 minutes (pg. 3).
As discussed above, Bell provides the suggestion to form the film to have a thickness of about 1 to 100 mils.
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the time for the coating to be within the claimed range so as to provide the desired coating thickness because the longer the substrate is in contact with nylon in the fluidized bed, the thicker the coating will be, such that by optimizing the time to be within the claimed range it will be expected to provide a coating have a suitable thickness. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone in view of Aquitaine and Bell and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda or Kaistha in view of Pallone, Aquitaine, and Bell and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hanada, JP H1190313 A.
Regarding claim 17, Pallone in view of Aquitaine and Bell and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda or Kaistha in view of Pallone, Aquitaine, and Bell and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda suggest the process of claim 16.
They do not teach cleaning the substrate.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Hanada, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first heated the substrate to a temperature of greater than 100°C (212°F) to burn off moisture, dust, and grease from the surface of the metal or steel substrate because Hanada teaches that such a method is suitable for removing any moisture, dust, or grease from a steel surface prior to coating so as to prevent peeling of a coating material such that it will also be expected to prime the metal or steel surface for coating of the PIM-preventing nylon layer while also preventing the layer from peeling off. Therefore, they suggest heating to a temperature overlapping the claimed range. Further, since they suggest heating to burn off moisture, dust, and grease, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within the claimed range so as to provide the desired result. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It is noted that while Hanada teaches cooling the substrate prior to coating, since the suggestion is to coat the substrate by melting the nylon to the surface, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the temperature of the substrate to the elevated temperature suggested by Aquitaine so as to achieve the desired coating.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallone in view of Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wu, US 2021/0298169 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Pallone in view of Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda suggest the process of claim 15.
They do not teach the pass range of the substrate.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the nylon layer on the substrate such that the PIM is lower than or equal to -155 dBc because Wu teaches that such a PIM range is suitable for a dielectric layer in a PCB for preventing signal interference. Therefore, the pass range of the substrate will overlap the claimed range. Further, since they provide the process of claim 1, the resulting product is also expected to be within the claimed pass range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Larson, US 2017/0373386 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Kaistha in view of Pallone and Aquitaine and alternatively in view of Masuda as evidenced by Chanda suggest the process of claim 15.
They do not teach the pass range for the coated substrate.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Larson, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the nylon coating on the antenna mount such that the PIM is less than -140 dBc because Larson teaches that such a range is suitable for a polymer coated antenna for high power applications such that it will also be expected to provide a suitable PIM for the nylon coated antenna mount kit. Therefore, the PIM pass range will overlap the claimed range. Further, since they provide the process of claim 1, the resulting product is also expected to be within the claimed pass range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights