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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7 March, 2024 and 11 December, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device that emits radio waves toward the radio wave transmitting member” in claim (s) 8.
Generic placeholder “device” (Prong A) coupled with functional language(s) “emits radio waves toward the radio wave transmitting member” (Prong B). Furthermore, the non-structural term is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function(s) (Prong C).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, “device” corresponds to a millimeter-wave radar [Applicant’s disclosure, para. 0037].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oosterbosch et al. (US 2014/0327595 A1 “OOSTERBOSCH”).
Regarding claim 1, OOSTERBOSCH discloses a radio wave transmitting member, comprising, in order, an outer layer, an intermediate layer and an inner layer (the consolidated sheets were used as facings to manufacture a radome wall [0092]); (the facings were separated by a core [0092]), the intermediate layer comprising an elastic body (a core containing an R82.110 Alcan Airex® foam [0092]), and the elastic body being in a constantly compressed state (the sandwich was pressed at 125 degrees [0092]). The Examiner further noted that facings as disclosed by OOSTERBOSCH correspond to outer layer and inner layer as claimed, and a core as disclosed by OOSTERBOSCH corresponds to intermediate layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, OOSTERBOSCH discloses the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer comprises a resin in a foamed state (a core containing an R82.110 Alcan Airex® foam [0092], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). The Examiner further noted that Airex® foam is a resin in a foamed state, as is well-known in the art. See, for example, pertinent art Jane Cotter cited in Conclusion.
Regarding claim 3, OOSTERBOSCH discloses the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1, wherein each of the outer layer and the inner layer comprises a resin (the facings contained by the radome wall of the invention may also contain a coating, e.g. epoxy resins, cyanate Ester, PTFE, and polybutadiene [0035]); (a plurality of layers consisting essentially of solid-state ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) tapes [0091]). The Examiner further noted that UHMWPE is a resin, as is well-known in the art. See, for example, pertinent art Torgersen cited in Conclusion.
Regarding claim 6, OOSTERBOSCH discloses the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1, the radio wave transmitting member being configured to transmit radio waves with a frequency of from 20 GHz to 300 GHz (the radome wall had excellent structural and electromagnetic properties. The transmission efficiency (TE) at target frequencies 4.0 GHz, 39.5 GHz and 72 GHz was greater than 95% with very good broadband performance [0093]).
Regarding claim 8, OOSTERBOSCH discloses an object detecting structure, comprising the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1 and a device that emits radio waves toward the radio wave transmitting member (the inventive radome wall is placed in the path of electromagnetic waves [0060]); (the invention further relates to a radome-antenna system comprising a radome containing the inventive radome wall and an antenna device. Preferably, the antenna device is chosen from the group consisting of an antenna array; a microwave antenna; a dual or multiple frequency antenna preferably operating at frequencies above 39.5 GHz; a radar antenna; a planar antenna; and a broadcast antenna [0058]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OOSTERBOSCH, in view of Yanagi (US 2022/0123458 A1 “YANAGI”).
Regarding claim 4, OOSTERBOSCH discloses (Examiner’s note: What OOSTERBOSCH does not disclose is ) the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1,
However, OOSTERBOSCH does not disclose that the radio wave transmitting member further comprises a metal layer that is transmissive with respect to radio waves.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANAGI teaches that the bright film is a layer having metal brightness disposed so as to cover the front side surface of the base portion, and is a metallic-colored thin film containing indium (In) or the like. The bright film is, for example, a discontinuous film having a large number of fine gaps, and is capable of transmitting radio waves through these gaps [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of OOSTERBOSCH to include the teachings of YANAGI, because applying a metallic luster to a part of the radar cover would enhance the texture of the identification mark such as the emblem formed on the radar cover, as recognized by YANAGI. In addition, both of the prior art references, OOSTERBOSCH and YANAGI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, a cover for radar.
Regarding claim 5, OOSTERBOSCH, as modified by YANAGI, discloses the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 4,
However, OOSTERBOSCH, as modified, does not disclose that wherein the metal layer is disposed between the outer layer and the intermediate layer or between the inner layer and the intermediate layer.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANAGI teaches that an inner emblem 12 has a base portion made of resin and a bright film having a metallic luster formed on the front surface side of the base portion. In addition, the inner emblem 12 has a base coat layer and a top coat layer, as needed. [0033]. The base coat layer is formed between the base portion and the bright film, and is formed by clear coating using a transparent (including colored transparent) synthetic resin. The top coat layer is formed on the bright film so as to cover the bright film, is a layer that protects the bright film, and is formed by, for example, clear coating using a transparent synthetic resin [0034 & FIG. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of OOSTERBOSCH to include the teachings of YANAGI, because doing so would protect the bright film layer and improve heat resistance and radio wave transmission, as recognized by YANAGI.
Regarding claim 7, OOSTERBOSCH discloses
However, OOSTERBOSCH does not disclose that an emblem comprises the radio wave transmitting member.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANAGI teaches that the present invention is applied to the radar cover 10 having a design of the character-shape of “A”. The present invention can be applied to a radar cover on which a figure or character indicating an emblem or the like of a vehicle manufacturer is formed [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of OOSTERBOSCH to include the teachings of YANAGI, because doing so would provide cover for the radar unit of the vehicle for measurement of distance and relative speed of obstacles, as recognized by YANAGI. Furthermore, an emblem comprising the radio wave transmitting member according to claim 1 would improve vehicle’s exterior design aesthetics, and provide protection for the radar from outside environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugiura et al. (US 2015/0140259 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a cover having a transparent member formed of a resin material, a suppression sheet formed of a polyamide resin, a base formed of a resin material, and a shiny layer formed by vapor-depositing metal material; and a radio-wave transparent cover being an emblem attached to an opening of a front grille, which is arranged on a front surface of a vehicle.
Mizoguchi et al. (US 2020/0130336 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of the interlayer being squashed between the fiber-reinforced resin plates, and the fiber-reinforced resin plate is deformed, thereby the thin plate portion and the bent portion are formed. At that time, in the interlayer of the thin plate portion, the foam material is broken and squashed.
Jane Cotter (Core materials - forming the future, Reinforced Plastics, Volume 50, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 40-43, ISSN 0034-3617, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-3617(06)70872-4) is considered pertinent background art for the disclosure of Alcan Composites Core Materials introducing a new polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin for structural core materials. The new foam, AIREX® T90 – produced by Alcan Airex AG – is called an ‘easy processing structural foam.’
Torgersen (US 2022/0170212 A1) is considered pertinent background art for the disclosure of UHMWPE being a polyolefin resin of very high molecular weight, usually between 2 and 6 million g/mol, which has extremely long polymer chains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 January 2, 2026