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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 02/27/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-25 have been canceled. Claims 26-48 are now pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the information on the plots of Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B is either too faint to be seen and/or too similar to be distinguished from one another. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0055] ends in two periods;
[0068] refers to the two short parallel ribs as both item 42 and item 40, which Examiner believes is a mere typographical error, and both should refer to item 42 (see line 23 of p. 9);
[0070] refers to the pattern in Fig. 3D as being not symmetric, but the pattern clearly has at least two axial symmetries and a few 180° rotational symmetries as well; Because this could lead to questions of support for the claim limitations of claim 34, if not otherwise supported, Examiner notes that it is Examiner’s opinion that the specification’s text disclosure of non-symmetric patterns is sufficient to indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the inventors had adequate written disclosure of such limitations, as an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily conceive of a non-symmetric pattern of such ribs, without such an example in the figures; Nevertheless, Fig. 3D is symmetric under the broadest reasonable interpretation, although, specific rotational asymmetries are present in Fig. 3D.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 35, 37, 40-41, 43-45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 recites “the first and second dielectric layers”; however, the claims previously adopted the convention ‘the first and the second dielectric layers’ (e.g., claims 26, 30, 32); While definite in context, a convention should be chosen and maintained so as to maintain clarity;
Claim 37 recites “wherein the first and the second dielectric layers take the form of continuous plates, of constant thickness and generally planar”, which is lacking a verb before ‘generally planar’, e.g., ‘wherein the first and the second dielectric layers take the form of continuous plates, of constant thickness and are generally planar’;
Claim 40 recites “…the first dielectric layer .”, which should read ‘…the first dielectric layer.’, as there is an extra space before the period;
Claim 41 recites “a water absorber”, which Examiner believes is a typographical error that should read ‘a radar absorber’, as claim 42 subsequently refers to ‘the radar absorber’, and the disclosure pertains to a radar absorber using water as the absorber, rather than that which is absorbed; Examiner notes that this interpretation avoids the potential antecedent basis issue in the recitation of “the radar absorber” in claim 42;
Claim 43 recites “the first and second dielectric layers”; however, the claims previously adopted the convention ‘the first and the second dielectric layers’ (e.g., claims 26, 30, 32); While definite in context, a convention should be chosen and maintained so as to maintain clarity;
Claim 45 recites “…the second dielectric layer .”, which should read ‘…the second dielectric layer.’ , as there is an extra space before the period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 27 recites “fixing means configured to mount…” and “the fixing means are configured to define a gap between the second dielectric layer and the surface…”. Fixing means that are ‘configured to mount [another element]’ and that are ‘configured to define a gap [between other elements]’ recite functional language on ‘means’, and do not recite adequate structure to perform the recited function, and thus 112(f) interpretation is invoked.
Claim 28 depends on claim 27, and similarly recites limitations invoking 112(f) interpretation for ‘the fixing means’.
Because these claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structures in the specification are found in Fig. 4, [0012], and [0051] to be screws, or in [0051] to be a cam mechanism.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 36, it is unclear whether the limitation “wherein the water layer has a temperature comprised between 5° C and 45° C” further limits the device. As best understood, the claims do not require any structure for controlling a temperature of water in the device, nor does the specification appear to support any such structures (i.e., heating and/or cooling device(s)). Claim 26 requires only two dielectric layers and a frame with the capability to hold water in a volume between the first and second dielectric layers. Accordingly, it appears this limitation in claim 36 may be only a recitation of intended use, as no structure exists in the specification for ensuring such a temperature, and furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 1 does not require water or the water layer to be a part of the device, only that the device contain structure capable of holding water in a water layer between the dielectric layers. Logically, the limitation could not be read as limiting an initial temperature of the water, as claim 26 does not require the water itself. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as intended use, which does not further limit the structure or functionality of the device. See also 112(d) section below.
Claim 44 requires “injecting water through an opening of the frame to fill the volume; and applying a waterproof material on an outer periphery of the frame”, which appears to directly disagree with the disclosure ([0076]-[0077]), which discloses applying the waterproof material before filling the volume with water. Furthermore, it is unclear how one could fill the water before applying the waterproof material, as best apprised by Applicant’s disclosure. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘applying a waterproof material on an outer periphery of the frame; and injecting water through an opening of the frame to fill the volume’.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim requires that the pattern of ribs is ‘symmetrical or not symmetrical’. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this includes every potential pattern of ribs, as each and every potential pattern is either symmetrical or non-symmetrical, and accordingly, the pattern of ribs required in claim 33 already inherently requires that the pattern be either symmetrical or non-symmetrical, and thus this limitation in claim 34 does not further limit the ribs or any other element of the structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim requires that the water layer has a temperature in a particular range. However, the disclosure does not provide support for active control of the temperature, and thus, this limitation is understood as not requiring active control of the temperature by the device itself. Under the BRI, claim 26 (upon which claim 36 depends), does not require a water layer, merely the capability to hold such a water layer. Accordingly, limitations directed toward the water layer are not limitations on the device itself, and the limitation does not further limit claim 26. Examiner suggests rephrasing as functionality of the absorber itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 30, 36-37, 41, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of Manning (USPN US 3325808 A), Wu (DOI: 10.7567/1882-0786/ab0f66), Zhekov (DOI: 10.23919/EuCAP51087.2021.9411323), and Zhou (DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.05.050).
Examiner notes that each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, and Zhou are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/27/2024.
Regarding claim 26, Manning teaches a radar absorber (See Figs. 3-4, showing radar signal and device according to an embodiment, respectively; Col. 8, Line 69 – Col. 9, Line 29) comprising at least:
a first dielectric layer configured to face away from a surface to be protected (See Fig. 4, item 40);
a second dielectric layer configured to face towards the surface to be protected (See Fig. 4, item 41, which is disclosed in the above cited portion as Mylar); and
a frame configured to hold water in a water layer enclosed in a volume between the first and the second dielectric layers (See Fig. 4, side walls of device; See Fig. 4, item 43, which can hold water therein, in a volume thereof; See Fig. 3, items 36-37 and supporting description in Col. 7, Line 47 – Col. 8, Line 67, in particular Col. 8, Lines 10-15, disclosing water permeating the foam and the foam layer filling the volume between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers, and being controllable in size, see Col. 8, Lines 46-67).
Wu also teaches a radar absorber (Abstract) comprising at least:
a first dielectric layer configured to face away from a surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, showing two layers of TPU in grey);
a second dielectric layer configured to face towards the surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, showing two layers of TPU in grey); and
a frame configured to hold water in a water layer enclosed in a volume between the first and the second dielectric layers (See Fig. 1, showing TPU structures between two TPU layers, and showing water in blue).
Zhekov also teaches a radar absorber (Abstract; See Fig. 6 and supporting description in Section III; See Figs. 7-8 and supporting description in Section IV) comprising at least:
a first dielectric layer configured to face away from a surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, top plastic container layer; Section I, paragraph 3);
a second dielectric layer configured to face towards the surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, bottom plastic container layer; Section I, paragraph 3); and
a frame configured to hold water in a water layer enclosed in a volume between the first and the second dielectric layers (See Fig. 1, side walls of plastic container; Section I, paragraph 3).
Zhou also teaches a radar absorber (Abstract) comprising at least:
a first dielectric layer configured to face away from a surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, and in particular H1 or H3, which are made of resin as disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1);
a second dielectric layer configured to face towards the surface to be protected (See Fig. 1, and in particular H1 or H3, which are made of resin as disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1); and
a frame configured to hold water in a water layer enclosed in a volume between the first and the second dielectric layers (See Fig. 1, and in particular Figs. 1a-1c, which respectively show the inner structure of the frame, the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers).
Regarding claim 30, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, and Zhou teaches wherein the frame delimits the volume between the first and the second dielectric layers (Manning: See Fig. 4, side walls of device; Wu: See Fig. 1, frame elements defining volume between top and bottom TPU layers ; Zhekov: See Fig. 1(a), side walls of plastic structure; Zhou: See Figs. 1, which show the inner structure of the frame, the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers, thereby inherently delimiting the volume there between).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
As discussed above, this limitation does not appear to limit the structure of the device, since no active temperature control structure is supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Examiner notes that the temperature range included includes room temperature, and if not otherwise specified, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the prior art devices as operating at room temperature if not otherwise specified.
Nevertheless, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou further teaches wherein the water layer has a temperature comprised between 5° C and 45° C (Manning: Does not discuss temperature control, indicating room temperature operation; however, co-pending US Appl. No. 485, 239 does discuss temperature control, see citation below; Wu: Discloses operation at room temperature; Zhekov: Discloses operating at various temperatures between 10° C and 50° C and at 20° to compare the two designs, see Figs. 4, 7-8; Sections III and IV; Zhou: Discloses operating at various temperatures, including specifically disclosing testing at 20° C, see Figs. 7, Sections 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 37, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou wherein the first and the second dielectric layers take the form of continuous plates, of constant thickness and generally planar (Manning: See Fig. 4, showing items 40 and 41 being generally planar plates having constant thickness; Wu: See Fig. 1c, showing top and bottom TPU layers being generally planar plates having constant thickness; Zhekov: See Fig. 1, showing plastic layers being generally planar plates having constant thickness; Zhou: See Fig. 1(c), with top and bottom resin layers H1, H3 being generally planar plates having constant thickness).
Regarding claim 41, each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, and Zhou teaches a method for manufacturing a water absorber (As discussed above, interpreted as ‘radar absorber’; Manning: See Figs. 3-4, showing radar signal and device according to an embodiment, respectively, the device inherently having been manufactured; Col. 8, Line 69 – Col. 9, Line 29; Wu: See Figs. 1; Abstract, disclosing 3D printing as the method of manufacture; Zhekov: Abstract; Section 2; See Fig. 6 and supporting description in Section III; See Figs. 7-8 and supporting description in Section IV; Zhou: Abstract, disclosing 3D printing as the method of manufacture) comprising:
providing at least a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer (Manning: See Fig. 4, items 40 and 41, disclosed above as rigid plastic materials, including those having conductive particles distributed therein, and Mylar/PET, respectively, which are interpreted as ‘dielectric’; Wu: See Fig. 1, showing two layers of TPU in grey; Zhekov: See Fig. 1, top and bottom plastic container layers; Section I, paragraph 3; Zhou: See Fig. 1, and in particular H1 or H3, which are made of resin as disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1); and
configuring a frame (Manning: See Fig. 4, side walls, frame is inherently configured at some point; Wu: Abstract, disclosing 3D printing; See Fig. 1, showing TPU structures between two TPU layers; Zhekov: See Fig. 1, side walls of plastic container; Section I, paragraph 3; Zhou: See Figs. 1a-1c, which show the inner structure of the device, the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers) configured to hold water (Manning: See Fig. 4, water held in item 43; Col. 9, Lines 16-29; Wu: Abstract; See Fig. 1, water in blue; Zhekov: See Fig. 1, water in blue; Section I, paragraph 3; Zhou: See Figs. 1a-1c, water in pink, the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers) and form a water layer between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (Manning: See Fig. 4, water held in item 43; Col. 1, Lines 55-75; Col. 6, Lines 29-35; Col. 8, Line 65 – Col. 9, Line 29; Wu: Abstract; See Fig. 1, water in blue between TPU layers; Zhekov: See Fig. 1, water in blue; Section I, paragraph 3; Zhou: See Figs. 1a-1c, water in pink, the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers H1 and H3).
Regarding claim 43, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 41.
Each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, and Zhou further teaches further comprising:
connecting the frame and the first dielectric layer; and
connecting the second dielectric layer and the frame to define a volume between the first and second dielectric layer (Manning: See Figs. 3-4, and in particular items 40 and 41 is connected to side walls, with a volume inherently formed therebetween, which is filled by item 43 and water in function; Wu: See Figs. 1, showing frame TPU elements connecting to top and bottom TPU layers, and a volume is inherently formed therebetween, wherein water is shown; Zhekov: See Fig. 1(a), sidewalls connecting to top and bottom plastic layers, inherently forming a volume therebetween, wherein water is shown in blue; Zhou: See Figs. 1, wherein top and bottom resin layers H1 or H3 define pink water unit cells (i.e., volumes), the outer frame being disclosed in Section 2, paragraph 1 as holding water and the water held between the equivalents of the two dielectric layers H1 and H3).
Regarding claim 44, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 43.
As discussed above, the limitations further comprising: injecting water through an opening of the frame to fill the volume; and applying a waterproof material on an outer periphery of the frame are being interpreted as further comprising: applying a waterproof material on an outer periphery of the frame; and injecting water through an opening of the frame to fill the volume.
Each of Manning, Wu, Zhekov, and Zhou further teaches applying a waterproof material on an outer periphery (interpreted as an outermost surface of its silhouette) of the frame (Manning: The lateral surfaces of the frame of Manning are waterproof, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material, as Manning discloses the structure as being sealed apart from the conduit to inject/remove water, and applying the material is inherently done in the a manufacture of the device; See: Figs. 3-4; Col. 8, Line 20 – Col. 9, Line 29; Wu: See discussion regarding Fig. 6, wherein the device is reduced to practice, indicating the device is printed with an open end, then water is added before the device is ultimately closed, whereby the outer periphery of the frame is covered with a waterproof material, and applying the material is inherently done in the a manufacture of the device; Zhekov: The lateral surfaces of the frame of Zhekov are waterproof, with Fig. 1(a) showing, and Section II disclosing that ‘the water is closed from each side with plastic layer’, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material; See: Fig. 1(a); Section II; See also Fig. 1(b) and Section II, which disclose another design in which “the outermost unit cells along the borders of a final absorber (array of unit cells) will have a plastic wall on the external side, while the unit cells at the corners of the array will have plastic walls on the two external sides. Thus, the water will be hold within the final absorber.”, which is similarly interpreted as the outer periphery of the frame being covered with a waterproof material; Zhou: The lateral surfaces of the frame of Zhou are waterproof, with Section 2, paragraph 2 stating that ‘a water layer is surrounded by a shell of photosensitive resin which can prevent water from flowing out’, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material; See: Fig. 1; Section 2, paragraph 1); and
injecting water through an opening of the frame to fill the volume (Manning: See Fig. 4, item 13; Col. 6, Lines 29-35; Wu: See discussion regarding Fig. 6, wherein the device is reduced to practice, indicating the device is printed with an open end, then water is added before the device is ultimately closed; Zhekov: See Figs. 1, showing water between the layers, which is inherently injected; Abstract; Section II; Zhou: See Figs. 1, showing water in the structure, shown in pink; Section 2, which discloses two holes to allow adding and removing the water).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of Manning (USPN US 3325808 A), Zhekov (DOI: 10.23919/EuCAP51087.2021.9411323), and Zhou (DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.05.050).
Regarding claim 31, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 30.
Manning further teaches wherein an outer periphery (interpreted as an outermost surface of its silhouette) of the frame is covered with a waterproof material (The lateral surfaces of the frame of Manning are waterproof, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material, as Manning discloses the structure as being sealed apart from the conduit to inject/remove water; See: Figs. 3-4; Col. 8, Line 20 – Col. 9, Line 29).
Zhekov further teaches wherein an outer periphery of the frame is covered with a waterproof material (The lateral surfaces of the frame of Zhekov are waterproof, with Fig. 1(a) showing, and Section II disclosing that ‘the water is closed from each side with plastic layer’, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material; See: Fig. 1(a); Section II; See also Fig. 1(b) and Section II, which disclose another design in which “the outermost unit cells along the borders of a final absorber (array of unit cells) will have a plastic wall on the external side, while the unit cells at the corners of the array will have plastic walls on the two external sides. Thus, the water will be hold within the final absorber.”, which is similarly interpreted as the outer periphery of the frame being covered with a waterproof material).
Zhou further teaches wherein an outer periphery of the frame is covered with a waterproof material (The lateral surfaces of the frame of Zhou are waterproof, with Section 2, paragraph 2 stating that ‘a water layer is surrounded by a shell of photosensitive resin which can prevent water from flowing out’, and thus ‘the outer periphery’ of the frame is ‘covered’ with a waterproof material; See: Fig. 1; Section 2, paragraph 1).
Claims 32-34 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of Wu (DOI: 10.7567/1882-0786/ab0f66) and Zhou (DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.05.050).
Regarding claim 32, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Each of Wu and Zhou further teaches further comprising ribs arranged between the first and the second dielectric layer (Wu: See Fig. 1c, wherein TPU structures that are between the first and second TPU layers form ribs; Zhou: See Fig. 1(a) and 1(c), H1 and H3 layers have joining structures therebetween, forming the ‘I’ shaped water cavities).
Regarding claim 33, Wu or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 32.
Wu and Zhou each further teach wherein the ribs form a pattern and the pattern comprises one or more geometric shapes (Wu: See Fig. 1c, wherein the TPU structures between the TPU layers have a pattern, and the pattern includes one or more geometric shapes; Zhou: See Fig. 1(a), showing pattern of blue structures between adjacent water layer unit cells, which include one or more geometric shapes).
Regarding claim 34, Wu or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 33.
Wu and Zhou each further teach wherein the pattern is symmetrical or the pattern is not symmetrical (Wu: See Fig. 1c, pattern is symmetrical in according to some axes, and not symmetrical according to other axes; Zhou: See Fig. 1(a), pattern is symmetrical according to some axes and not symmetrical according to other axes).
Regarding claim 45, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 41.
Each of Wu and Zhou further teaches further comprising providing ribs to the first dielectric layer or the second dielectric layer (Wu: See Fig. 1c, wherein TPU structures that are between the first and second TPU layers form ribs; Zhou: See Fig. 1(a) and 1(c), H1 and H3 layers have joining structures therebetween, forming the ‘I’ shaped water cavities).
Regarding claim 46, Wu or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 45.
Each of Wu and Zhou further teaches further comprising providing the ribs to form a pattern comprising one or more geometric shapes (Wu: See Fig. 1c, wherein the TPU structures between the TPU layers have a pattern, and the pattern includes one or more geometric shapes; Zhou: See Fig. 1(a), showing pattern of blue structures between adjacent water layer unit cells, which include one or more geometric shapes).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.05.050).
Regarding claim 38, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 37.
Manning discloses the thickness of the entire absorber as being of various sizes, including as small as 0.05” to as large as 2”. Some exemplary thicknesses are 0.1” (=2.54 mm), ~0.18” (=4.572 mm), ~0.3” (=7.62 mm) (See Fig. 1; Col. 4, Line 3 – Col. 4, Line 73), and discloses changing the thickness of the dielectric layer to adapt to the frequencies desired to attenuate in these sections. Manning explicitly discloses the fluid film of being at about 0.2” (=5.08 mm) at rest, and be limited between 0.1” (=2.54 mm) and 0.3”(=7.62 mm). Accordingly, Manning discloses a distance between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is about 2 mm. However, Manning does not explicitly limit the thicknesses of the two plate layers, and thus does not explicitly teach the first dielectric layer has a thickness of about 4 mm or a thickness of about 2 mm; the second dielectric layer has a thickness of about 2 mm.
Wu discloses the thickness of the entire absorber as being as small as 4 mm total (See Abstract; Table I; Final paragraph of document) and discloses that he thickness of TPU is 0.5 mm. Furthermore, the dimensions for Fig. 1 show an ‘optimal’ H value of 3 mm, which would agree with the TPU having a thickness of 0.5 mm. Accordingly, Wu fails to explicitly disclose the first dielectric layer has a thickness of about 4 mm or a thickness of about 2 mm; the second dielectric layer has a thickness of about 2 mm; and a distance between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is about 2 mm, however, Wu discloses similar ranges.
Zhekov discloses the thickness of the plastic layers being 1 mm, and the thickness of the water layer also being 1 mm. Accordingly, Zhekov fails to explicitly disclose the first dielectric layer has a thickness of about 4 mm or a thickness of about 2 mm; the second dielectric layer has a thickness of about 2 mm; and a distance between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is about 2 mm, however, Zhekov discloses similar ranges.
Zhou discloses the two dielectric layers as having thicknesses of 1.4 mm and 2.4 mm and the water layer as having a thickness of 2 mm (See Figs. 1 and Section 2).
Accordingly, Zhou discloses wherein:
the first dielectric layer has a thickness of about 4 mm or a thickness of about 2 mm (See Figs. 1 and Section 2, Examiner notes that 1.4 mm and 2.4 mm are each interpreted as ‘about 2 mm’, as the total device is of nearly identical thickness, and as the specification of the instant application does not disclose a specific range or example for the scope of ‘about’);
the second dielectric layer has a thickness of about 2 mm (See Figs. 1 and Section 2, Examiner notes that 1.4 mm and 2.4 mm are each interpreted as ‘about 2 mm’, as the total device is of nearly identical thickness, and as the specification of the instant application does not disclose a specific range or example for the scope of ‘about’); and
a distance between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is about 2 mm (See Figs. 1 and Section 2, wherein 2 mm is explicitly disclosed).
Claims 39 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Wu (DOI: 10.7567/1882-0786/ab0f66).
Regarding claim 39, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Wu further teaches further comprising at least one intermediate dielectric layer configured between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, and the water layer being configured on either side of each intermediate layer (See Figs. 1b and 1c, in particular Fig. 1b, which shows two water layers A1 and A2 surrounding TPU layer in the center between two outer TPU layers).
Manning, Zhekov, and Zhou do not disclose such limitations.
Regarding claim 47, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 41.
Wu further teaches further comprising mounting one or more intermediate dielectric layers between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, each intermediate layer being arranged between two water layers (See Figs. 1b and 1c, in particular Fig. 1b, which shows two water layers A1 and A2 surrounding TPU layer in the center between two outer TPU layers).
Manning, Zhekov, and Zhou do not disclose such limitations.
Claims 40 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manning (USPN US 3325808 A).
Regarding claim 40, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Manning further teaches further comprising a resistive layer placed on an outer surface of the first dielectric layer (See Fig. 4, item 40; Col. 8, Line 68 – Col. 9, Line 15; layer 40 is disclosed as being resistive, and thus comprises a resistive layer on at least an outer surface thereof).
Wu does not teach such a resistive layer; Zhekov appears to show some sort of coating on top of the metal layer, but it does not explicitly discuss the properties of such a layer; Zhou does not teach such a resistive layer.
Examiner notes for completeness that Appleton discloses the use of a functional layer under the first composite layer which may be embodied as a resistive layer (See Figs. 2-3; [0028]-[0029]; [0048]-[0052]). Appleton also discloses a gel coating on the outer side of any of the panel embodiments for durability purposes, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to also exhibit resistive qualities.
Regarding claim 48, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 41.
Manning further teaches further comprising providing a resistive layer on the first dielectric layer (See Fig. 4, item 40; Col. 8, Line 68 – Col. 9, Line 15; layer 40 is disclosed as being resistive, and thus comprises a resistive layer on at least an outer surface thereof).
Wu does not teach such a resistive layer; Zhekov appears to show some sort of coating on top of the metal layer, but it does not explicitly discuss the properties of such a layer; Zhou does not teach such a resistive layer.
Examiner notes for completeness that Appleton discloses the use of a functional layer under the first composite layer which may be embodied as a resistive layer (See Figs. 2-3; [0028]-[0029]; [0048]-[0052]). Appleton also discloses a gel coating on the outer side of any of the panel embodiments for durability purposes, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to also exhibit resistive qualities.
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.
Claims 27-29 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over each of Manning (USPN US 3325808 A), Wu (DOI: 10.7567/1882-0786/ab0f66), Zhekov (DOI: 10.23919/EuCAP51087.2021.9411323), and Zhou (DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.05.050) in view of Appleton (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130135135 A1).
Examiner notes that Appleton is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/27/2024.
Regarding claim 27, Manning teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Manning further teaches further comprising fixing means configured to mount the radar absorber to the surface to be protected, wherein the fixing means are configured to define a gap between the second dielectric layer and the surface to be protected (See Fig. 7, wherein items 58 and 59 allow one to form a gap between the top part of the absorber 57 and the surface to be protected 56; Col. 10, Lines 16-39).
However, as discussed above, claim 27 invokes 112(f) interpretation, and as such ‘fixing means’ is interpreted to mean screws, cam mechanisms, or functional equivalents.
Accordingly, Manning does not explicitly teach further comprising fixing means configured to mount the radar absorber to the surface to be protected, wherein the fixing means are configured to define a gap between the second dielectric layer and the surface to be protected.
Appleton teaches the use of threaded studs (i.e., functional equivalent to screws) and nuts to mount a panel to a surface, wherein the threated stud mounts define a gap between the inner facing surface of the panel and the panel being attached to (See Fig. 5, items 56, 58, 60; [0053]-[0057]). Appleton additionally discloses the panel as being of layered design, with two composite (e.g. GRE) layers 38 and 40 around a foam (e.g., open-cell PET) core 36, the panel being sufficient to block some radar frequencies (See Fig. 2; [0046]-[0050]; See Also [0024]-[0025], Fig. 3 and supporting disclosure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou to include the fixing screw mechanism of Appleton in order to achieve further comprising fixing means configured to mount the radar absorber to the surface to be protected, wherein the fixing means are configured to define a gap between the second dielectric layer and the surface to be protected, by the combination.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to mount the respective absorber devices to a target surface, in order to controllably utilize their radar absorbing properties via the use of a fixing device for an alternative radar absorbing panel.
Regarding claim 28, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton teaches the radar absorber according to claim 27.
Appleton further teaches wherein the fixing means are configured to set a distance separating the surface to be protected from the second dielectric layer ([0054]-[0057]),
Appleton is silent with respect to the interval the distance is comprised in.
However, the distance is disclosed as variable in order to allow the panel to fit against varying curvatures of the surface to be protected, and the fixing means disclosed could be theoretically adapted to maintain a separation somewhere within the range of 0 mm to 50 mm. Accordingly, all of the required functionality is met by the combination.
Furthermore, because the structure disclosed by Appleton is capable of maintaining such a separation, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton discloses the claimed invention except for explicit disclosure of the distance is comprised in an interval between 0 mm and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton to explicitly include the distance is comprised in an interval between 0 mm and 50 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would be naturally motivated to position their absorber device at the distance that inherently best absorbs the desired frequencies, and could readily find such a distance by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 29, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton teaches the radar absorber according to claim 27.
Appleton further teaches wherein the fixing means comprise screws (See Fig. 5, item(s) 56, which is disclosed as threaded, and thus interpreted as a screw).
Regarding claim 42, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the method according to claim 41.
Manning further teaches further comprising mounting the radar absorber to a surface to be protected at a distance separating the surface to be protected from the radar absorber (See Fig. 7, wherein items 58 and 59 allow one to form a gap between the top part of the absorber 57 and the surface to be protected 56; Col. 10, Lines 16-39)
However, this disclosure in Manning would clearly not be applicable to the range 0 mm to 50 mm, and would not be combinable with the solid side embodiments or smaller flexible plate embodiments.
Appleton teaches the use of threaded studs (i.e., functional equivalent to screws) and nuts to mount a panel to a surface, wherein the threated stud mounts define a gap between the inner facing surface of the panel and the panel being attached to (See Fig. 5, items 56, 58, 60; [0053]-[0057]). Appleton additionally discloses the panel as being of layered design, with two composite (e.g. GRE) layers 38 and 40 around a foam (e.g., open-cell PET) core 36, the panel being sufficient to block some radar frequencies (See Fig. 2; [0046]-[0050]; See Also [0024]-[0025], Fig. 3 and supporting disclosure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou to include the fixing screw mechanism of Appleton in order to achieve further comprising mounting the radar absorber to a surface to be protected at a distance separating the surface to be protected from the radar absorber, by the combination, and in particular for Manning, to allow mounting of the embodiments which Manning doesn’t explicitly disclose mounting.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to mount the respective absorber devices to a target surface, in order to controllably utilize their radar absorbing properties via the use of a fixing device for an alternative radar absorbing panel.
Appleton is silent with respect to the interval the distance is comprised in.
However, the distance is disclosed as variable in order to allow the panel to fit against varying curvatures of the surface to be protected, and the fixing means disclosed could be theoretically adapted to maintain a separation somewhere within the range of 0 mm to 50 mm. Accordingly, all of the required functionality is met by the combination.
Furthermore, because the structure disclosed by Appleton is capable of maintaining such a separation, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton discloses the claimed invention except for explicit disclosure of the distance is comprised in an interval between 0 mm and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou in view of Appleton to explicitly include the distance is comprised in an interval between 0 mm and 50 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would be naturally motivated to position their absorber device at the distance that inherently best absorbs the desired frequencies, and could readily find such a distance by routine experimentation.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning (USPN US 3325808 A) in view of Berg (USPN US 4479994 A).
Regarding claim 35, Manning, Wu, Zhekov, or Zhou teaches the radar absorber according to claim 26.
Manning does not teach wherein the first and second dielectric layers are composed of a PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) or a rubber.
However, Manning discloses the use of a ‘rigid plastic material’, such as ‘glass cloth impregnated with epoxy resin or the like having conducive particles distributed therein’, as well as ‘conventional space cloth” secured to a rigid plastic base, for one of the layers, and the use of PET and/or Mylar (BoPET). Manning discloses using foam rubber as a structure to hold the water between the dielectric layers, however, does not discuss the dielectric layers themselves as being formed of such a rubber.
Similarly, Wu uses thermoplastic urethane (TPU), which is a more high-grade plastic material used for 3D printing the metamaterials therein.
Similarly, in Zhekov, FR4 substrates are used, which are glass-reinforced epoxy laminates, composed of woven fiberglass cloth with and epoxy resin binder, but the other plastic elements are not otherwise limited.
Similarly, in Zhou, a shell of photosensitive resin, which is used to facilitate 3D printing metamaterials, is used, wherein the resin can prevent water from flowing out, but the resin is otherwise not particularly limited.
Examiner additionally notes that the prior art Appleton discloses the use of PVC foam as an internal layer for the panels therein (i.e., item 36 in Fig. 2). However, while serving some similar purposes, this is not the same are the dielectric layers at issue, as it serves an equivalent role to the water layer, or alternatively the frame. Nevertheless, Appleton at least discloses the use of PVC as having utility in radar absorbing applications because of its favorable qualities therefor (See [0023]). In other layered structures, Appleton discloses the use of E-glass fibers combined with an epoxy or polyester resin.
Nevertheless, Berg teaches wherein the first and second dielectric layers are composed of a PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) or a rubber (See Figs. 1-4; Col. 2, Line 50 – Col. 3, Line 3, outermost layers made of PVC for similar reason).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manning to include wherein the first and second dielectric layers are composed of a PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) or a rubber, as taught by Berg.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a ubiquitous, inexpensive, commercially available alternative to the disclosed PET/Mylar layers of Manning, in the same manner, and for the same purpose, and would achieve predictable results by the substitution of the dielectric layer materials. Examiner notes that the disclosed PVC and PET/Mylar layers are functional equivalents and the respective materials are chosen for absorber devices similar reasons, as disclosed in Berg and Manning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kingler (US 3309704 A), disclosing a similar construction to that of Manning;
Huang (DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aa81af), disclosing a similar metamaterial water absorber to those disclosed above;
Pilaar (US 11610572 B2), disclosing similar construction for use in sound absorption, but could potentially be sufficient to satisfy many, if not all, of the requirements of some of the claims, depending on interpretation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881