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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 – pending
Claims 3-14 –amended
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 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.
1. Claims 1, 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/124131 A1 (Nagano) (submitted by the applicant on 03/12/2024), hereafter referred as Nagano.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4:
Nagano discloses “the present invention relates to a millimeter-wave band radio wave absorbing sheet comprising: a radio wave reflective layer (A); a radio wave absorbing lower layer (B) arranged parallel to the upper part of the radio wave reflective layer (A); and a radio wave absorbing upper layer (C) arranged parallel to the upper part of the radio wave absorbing lower layer (B)” (Nagano, [0013]). Nagano further discloses that the upper layer (C) faces the incident wave and has a lower dielectric loading/permittivity than the lower layer (B) “In Figure 1, a radio wave absorbing lower layer (B) and a radio wave absorbing upper layer (C) are stacked in order on top of the radio wave reflective layer (A).
This radio wave absorbing sheet is used so that radio waves α are incident from the upper radio wave absorbing layer (C) side.” (Nagano, [0019]). “the real part ε' of the relative permittivity… of the upper radio wave absorbing layer (C)... is between 2 and 10” ([Nagano, [0047]]. And finally “it is preferable that the real part of the relative permittivity … in the lower radio wave absorbing layer (B) is greater than the real part of the relative permittivity at a frequency of 79 GHz in the upper radio wave absorbing layer (C).” (Nagano, [0070], and claim 8).
In Nagano’s disclosures, layer (C) is the lower-permittivity and lower-filler-loading layer disposed toward the wave-incident face (as opposed in the instant Application where (B) is the toward the wave-incident face), and Nagano expressly attributes the sheet surface reflection performance/impedance matching at the incident face to layer (C) (Nagano, [0046] – [0050]), therefore
Nagano’s layer (C) corresponds to
the instant Application’s claimed “electromagnetic wave reflection suppression layer”, i.e., layer (B) – the higher loading layer near the reflector, and
Nagano’s layer (B) – the higher-loading layer nearer the reflector, containing the ferrite/dielectric powder responsible for absorption – corresponds to
the instant Application’ claimed “electromagnetic wave absorption”, i.e., layer (A).
Nagano further discloses that layer (B) and layer (C ) are formed of a binder loaded with some particular fillers.
“…radio wave absorbing lower layer (B), for example, a sheet in which dielectric powder is dispersed in a binder…” (Nagano, [0036]).
“… radio wave absorbing upper layer (C), for example, a sheet in which dielectric powder is dispersed in a binder…” (Nagano, [0066])
Nagano’s binders are the same rubber/polymer binders recited in the instant Application, e.g., “natural rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, isoprene rubber, butadiene rubber, butyl rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, …, silicone resin…” (Nagano, [0036])
Nagano’s dielectric powder for layer (B) expressly includes magnetic iron-oxide-type, “hexagonal ferrites such as barium ferrite, strontium ferrite, M-type ferrite, Y-type ferrite, Z-type ferrite, W-type ferrite, and U-type ferrite…” (Nagano, [0037] and [0041]), the same class recited in the instant Application, which is characterized by the Applicant as “electromagnetic wave absorbing materials”.
Furthermore, Nagano discloses the loading of dielectric powder in layer (C) in terms of by mass per 100 parts binder “When the radio wave absorbing upper layer (C) contains dielectric powder, its content can be appropriately adjusted depending on the type of dielectric powder, but generally it is suitable to be in the range of 5 to 800 parts by mass, preferably 50 to 400 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of binder.” (Nagano, [0068]) Here we would need to convert Nagano’s disclosed range to a mass% binder content to be comparable with what is recited by the instant Application:
For example,
Nagano’s “5 parts (of loading of dielectric powder) by mass per 100 parts binder” would correspond to approximately 100/105 ≈ 95.2 mass% of the binder content, which lies within the instant Application’s claimed range of “85 mass% or more”.
And Nagano’s “800 parts (of loading of dielectric powder) by mass binder” would correspond to approximately 100/900 ≈ 11.1 mass% of the binder content.
This leads to a range of 11-95 mass% of binder content taught by Nagano, which overlaps the instant Application’s claimed range of “85 mass% or more”. A prima facie case of obviousness exists here where the claimed range overlaps a range disclosed in the prior art. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
This is precisely the same design rationale disclosed by the instant Application for its reflection suppression layer (B) how to achieve better reflection suppression (instant application, [0016]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date of the invention to select a filler loading at or near the low end of Nagano’s disclosed 5-800 phr range for layer (C ), leading to the fact that a binder content of 85 mass% or more would be reached. This would have been a routine experimentation and optimization of variable (in this case filler loading of layer (C)) that Nagano identifies as a result-effective for reflection suppression and impedance matching. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Nagano’s dielectric-powder loading layer (B), Nagano discloses “The amount of dielectric powder contained in the lower radio wave absorbing layer (B) can be adjusted as appropriate depending on the type of dielectric powder, but generally it is suitable to be 100 to 1000 parts by mass, preferably 250 to 800 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of binder.” (Nagano, [0043]). Again, we would need to convert the phr into mass% of binder content as recited in the instant Application for comparison purpose. In fact, as shown the calculation above, here “100-1000 phr of powder” would correspond approximately to a filler content 50-91 mass% or binder content of about 9-50 mass%. This range overlaps the instant Application’s claimed range of “45-85 mass%” of binder content. This again is a typical prima facie case of obviousness under the overlapping-range doctrine. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Given that Nagano teaches this loading is a result-effective variable to be tuned for optimal absorption within a stated range window (Nagano, [0034-0035]. [0043], Example 5 [0111] and Example 6 [0112]), routine experimentation and optimization within Nagano’s’ disclosed range would have led a PHOSITA to the claimed 45-85 mass% window range. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, further recites “… the electromagnetic wave reflection suppression layer further contains non-magnetic particles.”
Nagano discloses the dielectric powder used in the layer (C) may include a variety of non-magnetic inorganic fillers “inorganic powders such as α-alumina, β-alumina, silicon carbide, chromium oxide, cerium oxide, iron oxide, corundum, artificial diamond, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, titanium carbide, titanium oxide, silicon dioxide, and boron nitride…” (Nagano, [0037]). These are the same classes of non-magnetic particulate additives (for example, silica, alumina) used in the instant Application’s reflection suppression layer (instant application [0026]).
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further recites “an adhesive layer between the electromagnetic wave reflection suppression layer and the electromagnetic wave absorption layer.”
Nagano expressly discloses this feature “Adhesive layers (P) are provided between each of the following layers: the radio wave reflective layer (A), the radio wave absorbing lower layer (B), the radio wave absorbing upper layer (C), and the design layer (D).” (Nagano, [0072]).
Note again that Nagano’s layer (B) maps the instant Application’s layer (A), and Nagano’s layer (C) maps the instant Application’s layer (B), and here Nagano’s adhesive layer (P) disposed between layer (B) and layer (C) directly corresponds to the instant Application’s “adhesive layer”.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, further recites “reflection attenuation amount is -10 dB or less, and an electromagnetic wave transmission attenuation amount is -10 dB or less.”
Nagano discloses the target frequency band is identical to the claimed band “In this specification, the millimeter-wave band refers to the 76–81 GHz frequency range used for collision avoidance and autonomous driving.” (Nagano, [0017]). Nagano further reports in his examples that achieved a -20 dB (or better) absorption bandwidth, i.e., a reflection attenuation stronger than -20 dB across a defined bandwidth within the millimeter-wave band “(*) Bandwidth at which radio wave absorption is -20 dB or more” (Nagano, [0105], and [0096] Table 3 ). A reflection “attenuation of -20 dB or more” meets the claimed threshold of “-10 dB or less”.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, further requires thickness ratio of layer A to layer B “0.7 to 1.4”.
Nagano discloses “the film thickness of the radio wave absorbing lower layer (B) is in the range of 0.1 to 1.5 mm, preferably 0.2 to 1.2 mm, and more preferably 0.4 to 1.0 mm, the film thickness of the radio wave reflective upper layer (C) is in the range of 0.3 to 2.2 mm, preferably 0.5 to 1.5 mm, and more preferably 0.7 to 1.2 mm, and the total film thickness of the radio wave absorbing lower layer (B) and the radio wave absorbing upper layer (C) is in the range of 0.5 to 3.7 mm, and more preferably 1.0 to 2.0 mm” (Nagano, [0084]).
Note again that
Nagano’s layer (B) maps the instant Application’s layer (A), and
Nagano’s layer (C) maps the instant Application’s layer (B)
The instant Application’s thickness ratio “A/B” would correspond to Nagano’s B/C.
Using Nagano’s preferred thickness values
B: 0.4 to 1.0 mm
C: 0.7 to 1.2 mm
which leads to B/C ranges from 0.4/1.2≈0.33 to 1.0/0.7≈1.43, a range of 0.33-1.43 that substantially overlaps the instant Application’s claimed “0.7-1.4” window. This overlap supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the instant Application’s claimed ratio window of 0.7 to 1.4 substantially overlaps Nagano’s preferred calculated ratio of 0.33 to 1.43, a PHOSITA would expect the overlapping range to yield substantially the same properties without a patentable difference, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality across the claimed range by the instant Application. MPEP 2144.05(I) “OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS”, In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further requires “wave absorption layer has a thickness of 1 to 2 mm”.
Nagano discloses “the film thickness of the radio wave absorbing lower layer (B) is in the range of 0.1 to 1.5 mm…” (Nagano, [0084]), which corresponds to the instant Application’s “wave absorption layer A” “thickness of 1 to 2 mm” claimed in Claim 8, which substantially overlaps. This overlap supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the instant Application’s claimed thickness of 1 to 2mm substantially overlaps Nagano’s preferred thickness of 0.1 to 1.5mm, a PHOSITA would expect the overlapping range to yield substantially the same properties without a patentable difference, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality across the claimed range by the instant Application. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further requires “a ratio (C/D) of permittivity at 1.5 to 11.6” per JIS C 2138-2007.
Here, Claim 9 of the instant application defines
“a real part C of a relative permittivity at 1 GHz of the electromagnetic wave absorption layer” and
“a real part D of a relative permittivity at 1 GHz of the electromagnetic wave reflection suppression layer”,
therefore here
“the real part C” corresponds to Nagano’s layer (B) “electromagnetic wave absorption”, and
“a real part D” corresponds to Nagano’s layer (C) “electromagnetic wave reflection suppression layer”.
Nagano discloses:
“the real part ε' of the relative permittivity of the lower radio wave absorbing layer (B) at a frequency of 79 GHz is in the range of 5 to 45, and the absolute value of the imaginary part ε'' of the relative permittivity is in the range of 0.5 to 15. The real part ε' of the relative permittivity is between 10 and 35, and it is even better if the absolute value of the imaginary part ε'' of the relative permittivity is between 1 and 12, preferably between 2 and 10.” (Nagano, [0034])
“The above-mentioned upper layer of radio wave absorption (C) is preferable if the real part ε' of the relative permittivity at a frequency of 79 GHz is between 2 and 10, and the absolute value of the imaginary part ε'' of the relative permittivity is less than 1. If the real part ε' of the relative permittivity of the upper radio wave absorbing layer (C) is less than 2, the radio wave absorption performance of this radio wave absorbing sheet in the millimeter wave band decreases. On the other hand, if it exceeds 20, the radio wave absorption performance of this radio wave absorbing sheet in the millimeter wave band also decreases.) and [0047]).
This leads to that the ratio of Nagano’s preferred values of the relative permittivity (B/C) ranges from 10/10 = 1.0 up to 35/2=17.5.
This ratio range 1.0-17.5 falls squarely within the instant Application’s claimed “1.5 to 11.6” range window. While Nagano tests the permittivity at 79 GHz rather than 1 GHz as recited by the instant Application, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date of the invention to characterize the same materials at 1 GHz using the industry-standard JIS C 2138-2007 protocol stated in the instant Application. This is a routine, art-recognized standard measurement technique for such materials, therefore the resulting real-part ratio of the real part ε' of the relative permittivity of layer (B) and layer (C) at 1 GHz would be expected to fall within the similar overlapping range window. This overlapping of Nagano’s disclosed ratio range and the instant Application claimed range supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further requires “real part C of a relative permittivity … is 5 to 40”.
As discussed above, Nagano discloses the relative permittivity of the real part of layer (B) – “5 to 45”, preferrable “10 to 35” (Nagano, [0034]). This completely falls within the instant Application’s claimed range of “5 to 40”, therefore supporting obviousness.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further recites that the type A durometer “hardness” of both layer B and layer A is “40 to 80 in terms of durometer type A hardness defined in JIS K 6253-1997”.
Nagano discloses the same or substantially identical primary matrix materials (e.g., silicone rubber) and filler configurations for the electromagnetic wave absorber (Nagano, [0036]). Inherently, providing the same underlying physical structure, resin matrix, and filler loading as disclosed in Nagano will result in the same physical result in hardness properties as claimed. Furthermore, a PHOSITA would recognize that optimizing the durometer hardness for target flexibility or structural integrity involves routine experimentation and optimization of binder selection, plasticizer and filler contents to meet Nagano’s stated objective designing a lightweight, flexible radio wave absorber (Nagano, [0009]) that can be easily installed even if the substrate surface is not flat (Nagano, [0014]). Modifying or selecting these parameters to achieve the specific durometer hardness as claimed in Claim 11 represents a recognized design choice and routine optimization to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2144.05(I), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further recite a “6 N/10mm or more in terms of 180o peel strength defined in JIS Z 0237-2009”.
Nagano explicitly teaches an adhesive layer (P) provided to improve adhesion between layers and enhance durability (Nagano, [0076]). Nagano further teaches providing the adhesive layer with standard formulation components and thickness to ensure sufficient bonding. ([0076]-[0079])
To the extent Claim 12 recites a specific numerical 180o peel strength (6 N/10mm or more), where the structure and composition of the prior art product are substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, the functional properties or characteristics of that product are presumed to be inherently present (MPEP 2112 “Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof”). Nagano’s adhesive layer, in its normal and intended operation, inherently provides or would necessarily achieve a peel strength within the claimed standard when using routine structural choices.
Furthermore, adjusting the specific parameters, such as adhesive coating thickness and formulations, to achieve a desired level of adhesion for standard structural integrity represents a routine experimentation and optimization of result-effective variables. MPEP 2144.05(I) “OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality for the threshold of 6 N/10mm, achieving this peel strength would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further recites a “a breaking elongation of the entire electromagnetic wave absorber is 150% or more”.
Nagano explicitly discloses flexibility matrix such as silicone rubber (Nagano, [0036]). High breaking elongation (stretchability before failure) is an inherent property of flexible polymer binders like silicone rubber (silicone rubber inherently possessing high breaking elongation), which allows such flexible sheets to bend and conform around curved or irregular substrate surfaces without cracking or failure (Nagano, [0009], [0014]). Selecting specific polymers or adjusting parameters such as plasticizer selection and content as well as filler loading to achieve a breaking elongation of “150% or more” as claimed in Claim 13 is a matter of routine experimentation and optimization inherent to working with these disclosed flexible materials to meet Nagano’s stated objective of flexibility. (MPEP 2112 “Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof”).
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, further requires “a sticky layer”.
Nagano discloses adhesive layers used for mounting/bonding the sheet “The adhesive layer (P) is a layer that is provided as needed to improve the adhesion between each layer and enhance the durability of this radio wave absorbing sheet. The adhesive that constitutes the adhesive layer (P)…” (Nagano, [0076]) “organic adhesives include vinyl acetate, …; and reactive hot-melt adhesives” (Nagano, [0077]), “Examples of inorganic adhesives include sodium silicate, …. Among the adhesives mentioned above, synthetic adhesives are preferred” (Nagano, [0078]) and “There are no particular restrictions on the thickness of the adhesive layer (P), but from the viewpoint of millimeter-wave radio wave absorption, it can generally be 100 μm or less” (Nagano, [0079]). It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a PHOSITA modifying Nagano’s laminate to include an additional adhesive (“sticky”) layer on the absorption-layer side, enabling the absorber side to be fixed to substrate for example.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/124131 A1 (Nagano) (submitted by the applicant on 03/12/2024), hereafter referred as Nagano, in view of WO 2018/168859 A1 (Hiroi et al.) (submitted by the applicant on 03/12/2024), hereafter referred as Hiroi.
Claim 2 depends from Claim 1, which is rendered obvious by Nagano as set forth above, and further requires “The electromagnetic wave absorber according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave absorbing material contains a magnetic iron oxide that has magnetic resonance in a frequency band higher than or equal to the millimeter wave band”.
Nagano’s own layer (B)’s filler includes “hexagonal ferrites such as barium ferrite, strontium ferrite, M-type ferrite, Y-type ferrite, Z-type ferrite, W-type ferrite, and U-type ferrite.” (Nagano, [0037]). But Nagano characterizes these fillers as dielectric, “Although ferrite generally acts as a magnetic material, it does not exhibit magnetism in the 76-81 GHz range, and therefore, in this invention, it is treated as a dielectric material.” (Nagano, [0042]), rather than a “a magnetic-resonance” absorber at the target frequency as claimed by the instant Application.
Hiroi, in the same field of endeavor of “ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ABSORBTION SHEET” (Hiroi, Title), explicitly overcomes Nagano’s characterization by disclosing that “Hexagonal ferrite serving as a ferrite-based electromagnetic absorber exhibits an electromagnetic-wave absorbing property in the 76 GHz band.” via magnetic resonance rather than dielectric loss (Hiroi, [0146]). Hiroi further discloses magnetic-resonance-type absorbing materials operating in the millimeter-wave band and above “can absorb electromagnetic waves with frequencies greater than or equal to several tens of GHz, which is the millimeter-wave band.” (Hiroi, [0011])
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Hiroi’s magnetically-resonant filler, millimeter-wave-band hexagonal ferrite for the ferrite filler of Nagano’s layer (B), because Nagano and Hiroi target the same 76-81 GHz radar band (Nagano [0017], Hiroi [0050]). Furthermore, both Nagano ([0037]) and Hiroi ([0146]) teach hexagonal-ferrite-type fillers dispersed in a rubber/polymer binder for the same absorbing-layer function. And finally Hiroi supplies the additional teaching of selecting a magnetically resonant filler rather than a dielectric loss filler taught by Nagano, which improves wave absorption specifically in the wave band of 71-86 GHz. This is the obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results” KSR 550, U.S. at 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
JP 2020145340 A (Hashimono Koichi) (submitted by the applicant on 03/12/2024), discloses a radio wave absorber having high transmission attenuation and reflection attenuation and provides a method of manufacturing the same. Especially, Koichi discloses that the electromatic wave absorbing material contains a magnetoplanbite-type hexagonal ferrite with a resonance frequency of around 76.5 GHz.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD SHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/G.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1765 /HEIDI R KELLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights