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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maezawa in US20070252771 as evidenced by Jansen in their publication “Determining Glass Transition Temperature Using DMA”.
Regarding Claim 1: Maezawa teaches an electromagnetic interference suppressor, which is an electromagnetic wave shielding material as claimed (See Paragraph 1 and 2). The material of Maezawa comprises a thin magnetic sheet (layer; See Figures) comprising a magnetic powder (a plurality of particles) and a binder (See Paragraph 81). The binder may be a resin (See Paragraph 84).
Maezawa teaches that the resin used may be chosen from one or more of a variety of resins to satisfy various conditions (See Paragraph 87-93). Maezawa teaches that the resin may have a glass transition temperature (Tg) of greater than 50C (See Paragraph 87). Alternatively, Maezawa teaches that the resin may have a Tg from room temperature to room temperature +40C (See Paragraph 93; room temperature is reported as 0 to 35C, See Paragraph 92; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term is 0 to 75C). Maezawa thus teaches two separate embodiments that have glass transition temperature ranges that overlap with the range of peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz as claimed.
Maezawa is silent in terms of the magnetic layer having a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz of 0C or higher and lower than 60C.
However, those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the glass transition temperature of a polymer is identified by the presence of peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement, which is evidenced by the attached evidentiary document to Jansen. The evidentiary document sets forth that the most common value indicated for the glass transition temperature using DMA is the localized maxima in the tan Delta. As this is the case, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect a resin that has a glass transition temperature at a particular temperature to also necessarily have a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ at the same temperature as the glass transition temperature.
Thus those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resins having a Tg of greater than 50C to also have a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz of greater than 50C (See Paragraph 87). Those of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the resins having a Tg from 0 to 75 C to also have a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz from 0 to 75C (See Paragraph 93). Thus, Maekawa teaches an overlapping range of resin compositions that would necessarily have an overlapping range of peak top temperatures of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz as claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2-3: Maezawa teaches that at least one of the surfaces of the electromagnetic wave shielding material is provided with a pasting or adhesion layer (See Paragraph 129; and Figure 1). Maezawa teaches that this pasting or adhesion layer may be use to paste the material onto a product through a joining force that is exerted. The pasting or adhesion layer is a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer as claimed as it must be placed on a surface to adhere to said surface. Maezawa teaches that this adhesion or pasting layer may be formed on one or both of the faces of the magnetic shield sheet (See Paragraph 118). Thus the magnetic shielding material may comprise two layers of the pressure sensitive adhesive and the resin layer comprising magnetic particles between said layers (See Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5: Maezawa teaches that the storage modulus (E’) is at least 107 Pa (0.01 GPa) at temperatures in the range from 0 to 75C (room temperature to roomtemperature+40C). Thus the storage elastic modulus of the material of Maezawa overlaps the modulus claimed (See Paragraph 95). Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Maezawa is silent in terms of the frequency at which testing occurs; however, the claims are to a material and not a manner of testing. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed modulus over a low frequency range, including 1 Hz as is set forth.
Regarding Claim 6: Maezawa teaches that the resin may have a urethane structure, such as a polyester based urethane resin (See Paragraph 85).
Regarding Claim 7-9 and 11: Maezawa teaches that the storage modulus (E’) is at least 107 Pa (0.01 GPa) at temperatures in the range from 0 to 75C (room temperature to roomtemperature+40C). Thus the storage elastic modulus of the material of Maezawa overlaps the modulus claimed (See Paragraph 95). Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Maezawa is silent in terms of the frequency at which testing occurs; however, the claims are to a material and not a manner of testing. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed modulus over a low frequency range, including 1 Hz as is set forth.
Maezawa is silent in terms of the peak top temperature of the loss tangent Tanδ as is discussed above. Maezawa teaches materials having Tg in the range from 0 to 75C (See Paragraph 93). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that resins having a Tg from 0 to 75 C would also have a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz from 0 to 75C (See Paragraph 93). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect this as the glass transition temperature is associated with such a peak. Thus, Maekawa teaches an overlapping range of resin compositions that would necessarily have an overlapping range of peak top temperatures of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz as claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12: Maezawa teaches that the magnetic powder may have a flat shape and may be metallic (See Paragraph 82 and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 13: The material of Maezawa is in the form of a sheet (See Abstract and Figures).
Regarding Claim 14-15: Maezawa teaches that the material as taught can be used in an electronic information transmitting apparatus, which makes use of an electronic component such as an antenna (See Paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maezawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng in US20160007510, as evidenced by Jansen in their publication “Determining Glass Transition Temperature Using DMA”.
Maezawa teaches the creation of an electromagnetic wave shielding material as is discussed above. The material of Maezawa comprises one or more magnetic layers containing magnetic particles and a resin, wherein the material of Maezawa has a glass transition temperature between 0 and 75 C and necessarily has a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscosity measurement at 1Hz between 0 and 75C associated with this glass transition temperature as evidenced by Jansen (See above)
Regarding Claim 4: Maezawa teaches that the shielding material may contain a metal layer (See Paragraph 118 and Figure 1).
Maezawa is silent in terms of providing two or more metal layers, wherein the magnetic layer is sandwiched between two layers of the metal layer.
However, Chen also teaches the creation of electromagnetic wave shielding materials (See Paragraph 2). Chen teaches that multiple metallic layers may be included in wave shielding materials in order to provide metallic layers capable of reflecting electromagnetic waves of different frequencies (See Paragraph 26). Chen shows that the layer containing magnetic particles and a resin may be sandwiched between two metal layers to provide a shielding material (See Figure 4). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide multiple metallic layers sandwiching the magnetic layer of Maezawa’s material based on the teachings of Chen. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the multiple metallic layers of Chen in order to provide shielding for various electromagnetic frequencies. The references are highly combinable as they are both drawn to EMI shielding materials.
Regarding Claim 10: Maezawa teaches that the storage modulus (E’) is at least 107 Pa (0.01 GPa) at temperatures in the range from 0 to 75C (room temperature to roomtemperature+40C). Thus the storage elastic modulus of the material of Maezawa overlaps the modulus claimed (See Paragraph 95). Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Maezawa is silent in terms of the frequency at which testing occurs; however, the claims are to a material and not a manner of testing. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed modulus over a low frequency range, including 1 Hz as is set forth.
Maezawa is silent in terms of the peak top temperature of the loss tangent Tanδ as is discussed above. Maezawa teaches materials having Tg in the range from 0 to 75C (See Paragraph 93). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that resins having a Tg from 0 to 75 C would also have a peak top temperature of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz from 0 to 75C (See Paragraph 93). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect this as the glass transition temperature is associated with such a peak. Thus, Maekawa teaches an overlapping range of resin compositions that would necessarily have an overlapping range of peak top temperatures of a loss tangent Tanδ in a dynamic viscoelasticity measurement at 1Hz as claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights