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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okano (JP2012060530A).
Regarding claim 1, Okano teaches a reflector (Fig. 1-5; abstract, pages 1-8 of English translation of JP2012060530A), comprising:
a dielectric layer (the planar member 21 in Fig. 4; page 5);
a conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 32 in Fig. 4, Page 5) that is provided on a first surface of the dielectric layer (the front surface of 21 facing 32 in Fig. 4; page 5) and includes a periodical arrangement of a plurality of conductor patterns (the patch elements 32 arranged at equal intervals on the front surface of the planar member 21 in Fig. 4, which corresponding to the phase delay elements 22 in Fig. 1; page 5, Paragraph 4); and
a ground layer (the planar conductor plate 31A provided on the entire rear surface of the planar member 21 in Fig. 4; which is corresponding to the planar conductor plate (ground plate) 31 in Fig. 2, Page 5, page 4, Paragraph 3) that is provided on a second surface of the dielectric layer (the rear surface of 21 facing 31A in Fig. 4; page 5), the second surface being opposite to the first surface (Fig. 4); wherein
the conductive layer is configured to reflect incident waves at an angle having a size different from that of an incident angle of the incident waves (Fig. 1-4, the phase delay elements 22 reflect incident waves 23 such that the equiphase surface 25 of the reflected wave 24 is made to be curved to generate a focusing area 26, implying reflection angles that differ from the incident angle to achieve convergence; Fig. 1; Abs, page 3-4); and
the dielectric layer has a relative dielectric constant of 2.0 or less (the planar member 21 has a dielectric constant of 1.5 or less; page 3, paragraph 3).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Encinar (EP1120856A1, 1st interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Encinar teaches a reflector (Fig. 1-2 and Fig. 6; [0002-0054]), comprising:
a dielectric layer (the substrate 210 in Fig. 2; [0017, 0032, 0036]);
a conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 200 in Fig. 2, [0032]) that is provided on a first surface of the dielectric layer (the front surface of the substrate 210 in Fig. 2; [0017, 0032, 0036]) and includes a periodical arrangement of a plurality of conductor patterns (Fig. 2, [0032]); and
a ground layer (230 in Fig. 2, [0036, 0009]) that is provided on a second surface of the dielectric layer (the rear surface of of the substrate 210 in Fig. 2; [0017, 0032, 0036]), the second surface being opposite to the first surface (Fig. 2); wherein
the conductive layer is configured to reflect incident waves at an angle having a size different from that of an incident angle of the incident waves (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, [0003, 0009, 0036, 0017]); and
the dielectric layer (the substrate 210 in Fig. 2; [0017, 0032, 0036]) has a relative dielectric constant of 2.0 or less ([0017, 0036], the substrate 210 has a dielectric constant 1.05, and thickness 1mm).
Regarding claim 6, Encinar also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 6) a thickness of the dielectric layer is 0.3 mm or larger and 1.0 mm or smaller ([0017, 0036], the substrate 210 has a dielectric constant 1.05, and thickness 1mm)
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Encinar (EP1120856A1, 2nd interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Encinar teaches a reflector (Fig. 4-5 and 7-14; [0002-0054]), comprising:
a dielectric layer (the substrate 420 or 430 in Fig. 4; [0034, 0037]);
a conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 400 or 410 in Fig. Fig. 4; [0034, 0037]) that is provided on a first surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4) and includes a periodical arrangement of a plurality of conductor patterns (Fig. 4 and Fig. 12-13, [0037]); and
a ground layer (the layer corresponding to 440 in Fig. Fig. 4; [0034, 0037]) that is provided on a second surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4), the second surface being opposite to the first surface (Fig. 4); wherein
the conductive layer is configured to reflect incident waves at an angle having a size different from that of an incident angle of the incident waves (Fig. 4 and 7; [0034, 0037]); and
the dielectric layer (the substrate 420 or 430 in Fig. 4; [0034, 0037]) has a relative dielectric constant of 2.0 or less ([0037], 420/430 has a dielectric constant 1.05).
Regarding claim 7, Encinar also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 7) a size of the conductor patterns is 2 mm or more and 5 mm or less (Fig. 12, Picture 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Picture 1, from Fig. 12 of Encinar (EP1120856A1)
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 of this title, 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Ukei (US 2020/0161771).
Regarding claims 2-3, Okano teaches that the conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 32 in Fig. 4, Page 5) forms a reflection surface of the reflector (Fig. 1 and 4, Page 5), and a surface of the ground layer (the rear surface of the 31A in Fig. 4) opposite to the dielectric layer (the planar member 21 in Fig. 4; page 5) is a rear surface of a lower conductive layer (the planar conductor plate 31A in Fig. 4) opposite to the dielectric layer (the planar member 21 in Fig. 4; page 5). Okano does not teach the following elements.
Ukei teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, [0052-0053, 0037, 0025]):
(Claim 2) a tacky layer (40 in Fig. 1, [0052-0053]) is provided on a side opposite to a reflection surface (the reflecting surface of 22 in Fig. 1, [0037]) .
(Claim 3) a tacky layer (40 in Fig. 1, [0052-0053]) that is provided on a rear surface of a lower conductive layer (the electrically conductive layer 20 in Fig. 1, [0037]) opposite to a dielectric layer (10 in Fig. 1, [0025]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Ukei for the system of Okano such that in the system of Okano,
(Claim 2) a tacky layer is provided on a side opposite to the reflection surface.
(Claim 3) a tacky layer that is provided on a surface of the ground layer opposite to the dielectric layer.
The motivation is to make it easy to attach the electromagnetic wave adjusting element to an article such as a molded article (Ukei, [0052]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Masuda (US 2008/0212304).
Regarding claim 4, Okano does not teach the following elements.
Masuda teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, [0032-0033, 0068, 0223]):
(Claim 4) a protective layer (17 in Fig. 1, [0032-0033]) that covers a conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 101 and 102 in Fig. 1, [0223]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Masuda for the system of Okano such that in the system of Okano,
(Claim 4) a protective layer that covers the conductive layer.
The motivation is to prevent conductivity variation (e.g., oxidation) of the conductor (Masuda, [0033, 0068]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Sasahara (WO2023002980A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Okano does not teach the following elements.
Sasahara teaches the following elements (Fig. 2, Pages 31-32 of English translation of WO2023002980A1):
(Claim 4) a protective layer (the cover member 12 in Fig. 2, Pages 31-32) that covers a conductive layer (the layer corresponding the millimeter wave antenna element 2, which is made of copper, silver, or ITO, Fig. 2, Page 32, paragraph 7).
(Claim 5) a thickness of the protective layer (the cover member 12 in Fig. 2, Pages 31-32) is 0.025 to 1.5 mm (Page 31, Paragraph 6), and a relative dielectric constant of the protective layer (the cover member 12 in Fig. 2, Pages 31-32) is 2.0 to 5.0 (Page 31, Paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed ranges of 0.1 mm or larger and 1.0 mm or smaller, and 2.0 or less overlap with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Sasahara for the system of Okano to try and recognize that in the system of Okano,
(Claim 4) a protective layer that covers the conductive layer.
(Claim 5) a thickness of the protective layer is 0.1 mm or larger and 1.0 mm or smaller, and a relative dielectric constant of the protective layer is 2.0 or less
The motivation is to protect the conductive elements arranged on the substrate (Sasahara, Page 31, Paragraph 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Encinar (EP1120856A1, 1st interpretation).
Regarding claim 8, Encinar teaches that the conductive layer (the layer corresponding to 32 in Fig. 4, Page 5) and the ground layer (the planar conductor plate 31A provided on the entire rear surface of the planar member 21 in Fig. 4) are printed thin film conductive layer (Fig. 1 and 4-5, [0020, 0008]) compared with the dielectric layer (the planar member 21 in Fig. 4; page 5), and a bandwidth of a reflection frequency per unit thickness of the dielectric layer is 11.5, 12 or 12.5 GHz/mm ([0017, 0036], the substrate 210 has a thickness 1mm, the reflection frequency is 11.5, 12 and 12.5GHz). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of Encinar, a bandwidth of a reflection frequency per unit thickness of the reflector exceeds 6.5 GHz/mm. The motivation is that the manufacturing processes are both simpler and cheaper (Encinar, [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests all the combination of a reflector as set forth in claims 9-16.
Regarding claims 9-16, none of the prior art discloses or suggests a reflector recited in claims 1-8, respectively, wherein “the dielectric layer is formed of a conjugate of a fluororesin and an inorganic porous aggregate, and a porosity of the dielectric layer is 20% or more” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights