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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 16-20 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111565554 A) in view of Liang et al. (US 2019/0386364 A1) and Cohen (US 2003/0151556 A1).
Claim 1: Yang teaches a multi-spectrum transparent microwave absorbing material (“absorbing material” hereinafter) comprises an optical window, a surface layer period metal mesh grid (“top metal mesh grid” hereinafter) formed on the upper surface of the optical window and a bottom period metal mesh grid (“bottom metal mesh grid” hereinafter) formed on the lower surface of the optical window, wherein the optical window is glass (abstract). The glass optical window meets the claimed glass substrate, the top metal mesh grid meets the claimed first layer of metal and the bottom metal mesh grid meets the claimed second layer of metal. Yang teaches the top metal mesh grid, and the bottom metal mesh grid have periodic structures of a regular quadrangle or a regular hexagon (page 2, lines 22-23). The periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid meets the claimed first pattern, and the periodic structure of the bottom metal mesh grid meets the claimed second pattern. Yang teaches the periodic structures of the top metal mesh grid and the bottom metal mesh grid can be different from each other (page 5, lines 3-6).
Yang does not teach the shape of the periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid is a rectangular shape with individual sides including a notched region. However, Liang teaches a frequency selective surface (FSS) device comprising a gridded fractal element unit cell comprising a square grid 50 surrounding a Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 ([0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17), wherein the FSS can function as stopband (abstract) and the fractal element unit cell 52 can be made of copper ([0070] and [0076]). Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed outer structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the outer structure including the notched region. Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed inner structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the inner structure including the additional notched region. Yang and Liang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the frequency absorbing/stopband device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang with the invention of Yang, and the motivation for combining would be, as Cohen suggested, to provide a higher radiation resistance [0032].
With respect to the claimed optical transparency and the claimed amount of absorption of range of frequencies of microwave electromagnetic radiation, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects and physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., optical transparency and amount of absorption of range of frequencies of microwave electromagnetic radiation would implicitly be achieved by a device with all the claimed components. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components.
Claim 2: Yang teaches the purpose of the absorbing material is to realize optical transparency and microwave shielding and compatible absorption (page 2, lines 15-18).
Claim 3: Yang teaches when an electromagnetic wave is applied to the top metal mesh grid, exciting the surface current, generating resonance with the bottom metal mesh grid through the optical window, absorbs the electromagnetic wave (page 4, lines 16-18).
Claim 4: Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang meets the claimed Minkowski fractal ring (see also [0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17 of Liang).
Claim 6: Yang teaches the metal forming the top metal mesh grid and the bottom metal mesh grid is copper (page 2, lines 28-29).
Claim 7: With respect to the claimed range of frequencies absorbed, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects and physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e., range of frequencies absorbed would implicitly be achieved by a device with all the claimed components. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components.
Claim 8: The absorbing material of Yang is a microwave absorbing material (abstract). It is well established that microwave frequencies are ranging 300 MHz to 300 GHz, which includes the claimed target range of 20-45 GHz.
Claim 9: Yang does not teach the shape of the periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid is a rectangular shape with individual sides including a notched region. However, Liang teaches a frequency selective surface (FSS) device comprising a gridded fractal element unit cell comprising a square grid 50 surrounding a Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 ([0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17), wherein the FSS can function as stopband (abstract) and the fractal element unit cell 52 can be made of copper ([0070] and [0076]). Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed outer structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the outer structure including the notched region. Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed inner structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the inner structure including the additional notched region. With respect to the claimed size/width of the fractal element unit cell 52, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size/width of the fractal element unit cell 52, and the motivation would be to control the range of radiation frequency absorbed. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Yang and Liang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the frequency absorbing/stopband device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang with the invention of Yang, and the motivation for combining would be, as Cohen suggested, to provide a higher radiation resistance [0032].
Claim 10: Yang does not teach the shape of the periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid is a rectangular shape with individual sides including a notched region. However, Liang teaches a frequency selective surface (FSS) device comprising a gridded fractal element unit cell comprising a square grid 50 surrounding a Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 ([0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17), wherein the FSS can function as stopband (abstract) and the fractal element unit cell 52 can be made of copper ([0070] and [0076]). Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed outer structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the outer structure including the notched region. Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed inner structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the inner structure including the additional notched region. With respect to the claimed size/length of the fractal element unit cell 52, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size/length of the fractal element unit cell 52, and the motivation would be to control the range of radiation frequency absorbed. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Yang and Liang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the frequency absorbing/stopband device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang with the invention of Yang, and the motivation for combining would be, as Cohen suggested, to provide a higher radiation resistance [0032].
Claim 11: Yang does not teach the shape of the periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid is a rectangular shape with individual sides including a notched region. However, Liang teaches a frequency selective surface (FSS) device comprising a gridded fractal element unit cell comprising a square grid 50 surrounding a Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 ([0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17), wherein the FSS can function as stopband (abstract) and the fractal element unit cell 52 can be made of copper ([0070] and [0076]). Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed outer structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the outer structure including the notched region. Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed inner structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the inner structure including the additional notched region. With respect to the size/additional length of the fractal element unit cell 52, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size/length of the fractal element unit cell 52, and the motivation would be to control the range of radiation frequency absorbed. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Yang and Liang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the frequency absorbing/stopband device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang with the invention of Yang, and the motivation for combining would be, as Cohen suggested, to provide a higher radiation resistance [0032].
Claim 12: Yang teaches the periodic structure of the bottom metal mesh grid can be a regular quadrangle (page 5, lines 1-2), wherein the width of the regular quadrangle is 0.05-0.1 mm (50-100 µm) which overlaps with the claimed 125-250 µm.
Claim 13: Yang teaches the optical window comprises quartz glass (page 4, line 20). It is well established that silica is the main component of quartz glass.
Claim 14: With respect to the dielectric constant of the optical window, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select glass optical window with low dielectric constant, and the motivation would be to reduce signal delay. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 15: Yang does not teach the shape of the periodic structure of the top metal mesh grid is a rectangular shape with individual sides including a notched region. However, Liang teaches a frequency selective surface (FSS) device comprising a gridded fractal element unit cell comprising a square grid 50 surrounding a Minkowski fractal element unit cell 52 ([0056] and Figs. 2B, 9, 13 and 17), wherein the FSS can function as stopband (abstract) and the fractal element unit cell 52 can be made of copper ([0070] and [0076]). Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed outer structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the outer structure including the notched region. Fractal element unit cell 52 of Fig. 2B shows the claimed inner structure having the rectangular shape with individual sides of the inner structure including the additional notched region. With respect to the claimed gap/distance between an outer loop of cell 52 and inner loop of cell 52, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the gap/distance between the outer loop of cell 52 and the inner loop of cell 52, and the motivation would be to control the range of radiation frequency absorbed or blocked. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Yang and Liang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the frequency absorbing/stopband device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Fractal element unit cell 52 of Liang with the invention of Yang, and the motivation for combining would be, as Cohen suggested, to provide a higher radiation resistance [0032].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111565554 A), Liang et al. (US 2019/0386364 A1) and Cohen (US 2003/0151556 A1) as applied to claim 1, and as evidenced by Ly (US 2005/0040141 A1).
Yang, Liang and Cohen teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 5: Yang teaches the metal forming the top metal mesh grid and the bottom metal mesh grid is copper (page 2, lines 28-29). Evidence shows that copper has an electrical conductivity of approximately 58 MegaSiemens/meter at 20 ̊C (see [0037] of Ly).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
March 3, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785