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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-12-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the prior art of Mochizuki fails to disclose elements “electrically interconnected to re-radiate back an incident EM wave with a retroreflection angle substantially in the direction of arrival”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant points to a Van Atta array in the disclosure using symmetrical pairs of elements with equal transmission lines equal to multiples of wavelength to illustrate retro-directivity. The examiner notes that none of this is in the claim. Claim 1 merely states that electrically interconnected antenna elements re-radiate an incoming signal back in substantially the same direction.
Mochizuki, ¶66 states the elements share a plate-like base, referring to Fig. 2. Therefore, they are electrically interconnected. Fig. 2A also shows the re-radiated signal (reflected wave image) going back to the device is substantially the same direction as the emitted wave (EHF emission).
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.
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) 1-4, 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0293848, published September 17, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 11, Mochizuki discloses a radar retroreflective (R3) device comprising:
a dielectric substrate including a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (Mochizuki, Fig. 25B and ¶178);
an antenna array of electromagnetic (EM) elements disposed on the first major surface of the dielectric substrate, the antenna array of electromagnetic elements being electrically interconnected to re-radiate back an incident EM wave with a retroreflection angle substantially in a direction of arrival (Mochizuki, Fig. 2A and ¶59);
and an electromagnetic absorber disposed on or embedded in the first major surface of the dielectric substrate (Mochizuki, ¶77).
As per claims 2 and 12, Mochizuki further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the electromagnetic absorber is disposed on a periphery of the dielectric substrate, at least partially surrounding the antenna array (Mochizuki, Fig. 4, 202).
As per claim 3, Mochizuki further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic absorber comprises one or more ceramic filler materials (Mochizuki, ¶66).
As per claim 4, Mochizuki further discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic absorber comprises thermally conductive particles each having a conductive metal layer (Mochizuki, ¶66).
As per claim 15, Mochizuki further discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the antenna array re-radiates back the incident EM wave in a frequency range from 20 GHz to 130 GHz (Mochizuki, ¶80).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki.
As per claim 7, Mochizuki discloses directing the reflected signal back towards origin but fails to expressly disclose shifting of the signal being under 10 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the shift limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
As per claims 8, 9, 13 and 14, Mochizuki discloses the absorption of incident waves and retroreflection of the desired wave but fails to specify a 3dB benchmark (¶68).
The absorbers of Mochizuki help provide identification, so it’s understood that the provide the desired amount of absorption and reflection to allow proper identification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the dB limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Chang, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0176681, published July 12, 2012.
As per claim 5, Mochizuki discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose an anti-reflection film.
Chang teaches an anti-reflection film absorber (¶176).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a film, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Mochizuki in providing the desired absorption.
As per claim 6, Mochizuki as modified by Chang further discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the anti-reflection film has a lower dielectric constant and dielectric loss tangent than that of the electromagnetic absorber (Chang, ¶176).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the dielectric constant limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Lewis, U.S. Patent 3,496,570, published February 17, 1970.
As per claim 10, Mochizuki discloses the device of claim 1 including antenna elements but fails to explicitly disclose a Van Atta arrangement.
Lewis teaches a Van Atta array (abstract and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a Van Atta array in order to gain the benefit of using well-known and existing antenna arrangements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights