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 .
Status of Claims
Pursuant the previously filed restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected claims 1-8, with traverse, for examination. Therefore, claims 1-8 have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2024 and 06/14/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AOKI et al. (US 20250113475 A1), hereinafter AOKI.
Regarding claim 1, AOKI discloses
An electromagnetic loss film (see Fig. 17, electromagnetic wave attenuation film 1), comprising:
a magnetic oxide film body which corresponds to a magnetic response frequency (FR) (see Fig. 17, top coat layer 200 is a magnetic oxide film, further see paragraph 0149, “Furthermore, in order to impart design properties, the top coat layer 200 may contain a pigment or the like. The pigments used include organic pigments and inorganic pigments... Examples of inorganic pigments that can be used include yellow lead, yellow iron oxide, cadmium yellow, titanium yellow, barium yellow, aureolin, molybdate orange, cadmium red, red iron oxide, red lead, cinnabar, mars violet, manganese violet, cobalt violet, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, ultramarine, Prussian blue, emerald green, chrome vermilion, chromium oxide, viridian, iron black, and carbon black.”), wherein a range of the magnetic response frequency is 0.1 MHz ≤ FR ≤ 300 GHz (see paragraph 0201, “Using the configuration after the bending test, a simulation of the electromagnetic wave absorption characteristics was performed. The evaluation results are shown in Tables 1 to 6. FIGS. 24 to 42 show graphs of monostatic RCS attenuation at each frequency.”, where Fig. 24 clearly depicts a magnetic response curve between 60-90 GHZ); and
a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures formed in the magnetic oxide film body, wherein the electromagnetic loss structures penetrate or are recessed in the magnetic oxide film body (see Figs 1 and 2, further see paragraph 0065, “The thin film conductive layers 30 and 31 are layers formed of a thin conductor body. The thin film conductive layers 30 and 31 may include a plurality of conductive elements (hereinafter, the thin film conductive layers may sometimes be referred to as conductive elements when specific shapes and arrangements are considered).”), and each of the electromagnetic loss structures has a long diameter (see paragraph 0083, “The shapes and combinations of shapes of the conductive elements 30 and 31 will now be described. FIGS. 5A and 5B are schematic views showing examples of planar view shapes of a conductive element. Examples include the line shapes shown in FIG. 5A and the plane shapes shown in FIG. 5B.”, where Figs. 5A and 5B show the conductive elements to have differing shapes including shapes with a long diameter);
wherein the long diameter is N1x light velocity/FR, and 0.005 ≤ N1 ≤ 1 (see paragraph 0066, “The attenuation center wavelength can be obtained by dividing the light velocity in the dielectric substrate and the support layer by the attenuation center frequency f described below.”, where the attenuation center frequency is the frequency response and the attenuation center wavelength is indeed light velocity/FR, furthermore, see Fig. 7 which depicts the width W1 (i.e. diameter) of the conductive element and this diameter is indeed N1x light velocity/FR, where 0.005 ≤ N1 ≤ 1); and
a space between the electromagnetic loss structures is N2x light velocity/FR, wherein 0.005 ≤ N2 ≤ 1, and N1 < N2 (see Fig. 7, see paragraph 0066, “The attenuation center wavelength can be obtained by dividing the light velocity in the dielectric substrate and the support layer by the attenuation center frequency f described below.”, further see paragraph 0072, “The thickness can be one-tenth of the wavelength or less. Generally, when the difference in propagation distance of electromagnetic waves is one-tenth of the wavelength or less, a phase difference substantially does not occur. In other words, if the distance between the conductive elements and the flat plate inductor is one-tenth or less of the wavelength at the dielectric substrate and the support layer, because of the distance, a phase difference substantially does not occur between the electromagnetic waves re-emitted by the conductive elements and the reflected waves from the flat plate inductor.”).
Regarding claim 2, AOKI further discloses
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 1, wherein the long diameter of the electromagnetic loss structures and the space between the electromagnetic loss structures have a relation of 0.1 ≤ N1/N2 < 1 (see paragraph 0072, “This is a phenomenon referred to as cutoff of an electromagnetic wave. The thickness can be one-tenth of the wavelength or less. Generally, when the difference in propagation distance of electromagnetic waves is one-tenth of the wavelength or less, a phase difference substantially does not occur. In other words, if the distance between the conductive elements and the flat plate inductor is one-tenth or less of the wavelength at the dielectric substrate and the support layer, because of the distance, a phase difference substantially does not occur between the electromagnetic waves re-emitted by the conductive elements and the reflected waves from the flat plate inductor.”: NOTE: when taking into account the dimension w2 of the conductive element (i.e. long diameter of the electromagnetic structure) and distance between the electromagnetic elements 30/31, they fulfill the relation of 0.1 ≤ N1/N2 < 1 (see Fig. 8 for support)).
Regarding claim 6, AOKI further discloses
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic oxide film body is selected from a group consisting of iron oxide, cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, and iron, cobalt, nickel and manganese alloy oxides (see paragraph 0149, “Furthermore, in order to impart design properties, the top coat layer 200 may contain a pigment or the like. The pigments used include organic pigments and inorganic pigments... Examples of inorganic pigments that can be used include yellow lead, yellow iron oxide, cadmium yellow, titanium yellow, barium yellow, aureolin, molybdate orange, cadmium red, red iron oxide, red lead, cinnabar, mars violet, manganese violet, cobalt violet, cobalt blue, cerulean blue, ultramarine, Prussian blue, emerald green, chrome vermilion, chromium oxide, viridian, iron black, and carbon black.”).
Regarding claim 7, AOKI further discloses
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 1, further comprising an adhesive film layer, wherein the adhesive film layer is attached to a surface of the magnetic oxide film body (see paragraph 0150, “When the top coat layer 200 is multi-layered, it may be divided into a durability-imparting layer and a design-imparting layer. If necessary, a protective layer for protecting the design-imparting layer may be provided on the design-imparting layer. In addition, an adhesive layer or a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may be provided on the surface in contact with the thin film conductive layer 30, and a durability-imparting layer and a design-imparting layer prepared separately may be attached to form the top coat layer 200.”).
Regarding claim 8, AOKI further discloses
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 1, further comprising a metal layer, wherein the metal layer is attached to a surface of the magnetic oxide film body (see paragraph 0081, “The material of the thin film conductive layers 30 and 31 and the flat plate inductor 50 can be the same type of metal. This same type of metal may be the same pure metal or the same metal alloy (for example, both are an aluminum alloy), or the thin film conductive layers 30 and 31 may be a pure metal and the flat plate inductor 50 may be an alloy of the metal of the thin film conductive layer 30. Furthermore, the material of the thin film conductive layers 30 and 31 and the flat plate inductor 50 can be different types of metals.”).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AOKI et al. (US 20250113475 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 20120326800 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 3, AOKI discloses [Note: what AOKI fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 1,
Liu discloses,
wherein each of the electromagnetic loss structures is a hole penetrating through the magnetic oxide film body or a blind hole accessed in the magnetic oxide film body (see Figs. 1 and 2, where apertures 3 are the electromagnetic loss structures, further see paragraph 0066, “The apertures 3 may be formed on the substrates 1 through injection molding, stamping, or digitally controlled punching. If the substrates 1 are made of a ceramic material, the substrates 1 having the apertures 3 may be made through high-temperature sintering. In all the aforesaid embodiments, the apertures 3 may be through holes or blind holes.”).
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 Liu into the invention of AOKI. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electromagnetic loss film structure with a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the energy loss of the propagating electromagnetic wave (see paragraph 0006 of Liu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of AOKI and Liu discloses [Note: what AOKI fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 3,
Liu discloses,
wherein the hole is circular, elliptic or rectangular (see Figs. 1 and 2, where apertures 3 are the electromagnetic loss structures which are elliptic holes, further see paragraph 0066, “The apertures 3 may be formed on the substrates 1 through injection molding, stamping, or digitally controlled punching. If the substrates 1 are made of a ceramic material, the substrates 1 having the apertures 3 may be made through high-temperature sintering. In all the aforesaid embodiments, the apertures 3 may be through holes or blind holes.”).
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 Liu into the invention of AOKI. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electromagnetic loss film structure with a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the energy loss of the propagating electromagnetic wave (see paragraph 0006 of Liu).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of AOKI and Liu discloses [Note: what AOKI fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The electromagnetic loss film according to claim 3,
Liu discloses,
wherein the blind hole is a cylindrical blind hole, a hemispherical blind hole, a semi-elliptical cylindrical blind hole or a square cylindrical blind hole (see Fig. 3, where apertures 3 are the electromagnetic loss structures which are semi-elliptical cylindrical blind holes, further see paragraph 0066, “The apertures 3 may be formed on the substrates 1 through injection molding, stamping, or digitally controlled punching. If the substrates 1 are made of a ceramic material, the substrates 1 having the apertures 3 may be made through high-temperature sintering. In all the aforesaid embodiments, the apertures 3 may be through holes or blind holes.”).
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 Liu into the invention of AOKI. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electromagnetic loss film structure with a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the energy loss of the propagating electromagnetic wave (see paragraph 0006 of Liu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hou (US 20040000416 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses an electromagnetic wave film with a plurality of holes spaced closely apart (see paragraph 0029, “In view of curves A, B and C in FIG. 3A, the transmission loss (dB) of electromagnetic waves is lesser if the dimension and the distance between holes are smaller.”).
Yoshida et al. (US 20020030249 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses an electromagnetic wave film with a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures and further depicts the electromagnetic response frequency of the film (see Fig. 10).
Schloemann (US 4853660 A) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses an electromagnetic wave film with a plurality of electromagnetic loss structures (see Figs. 6A-6D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights