DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species B1 shown in Fig. 11, claims 17-21 in the reply filed on 4/26/2026 is acknowledged. However, claim 21 does not appear to be the embodiment shown in Fig. 11, since on-road antenna 210 is not formed within the wall 300.
Thus, the proper claims for Group II, Species B1 should have been claims 17-20.
*Note claim 17 depends on independent claim 1.
Claims 2-16 and 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim1 recites “the same of the first material”, which should have been “the first material” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farhat et al. (US 11,395,446 hereinafter “Farhat”).
Regarding claim 1, Farhat discloses a structure blocking electromagnetic waves (Fig. 3), including:
a first portion (106) comprised of a first material consisting of an electric conductor (col. 4, lns. 1-10: “…copper core 106…”); and
a second portion (108) comprised of a second material (col. 4, lns. 1-10: “… stainless steel…”) having an electrical conductivity smaller than the same of the first material and a corrosion-resistance higher than the same of the first material (stainless steel is corrosion-resistant and have lower conductivity than copper),
the second portion covering therewith at least a part of a surface of the first portion (108 cover 106 as shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagano (US 11,509,061).
Regarding claim 1, Nagano discloses a structure blocking electromagnetic waves (Fig. 1), including:
a first portion (A in Fig. 1) comprised of a first material consisting of an electric conductor (col. 10, lns. 5-19: “… aluminum foil…”); and
a second portion (C in Fig. 1) comprised of a second material (col. 10, lns. 5-19: “… vinyl chloride resin and titanium oxide…”) having an electrical conductivity smaller than the same of the first material and a corrosion-resistance higher than the same of the first material (vinyl chloride resin and titanium oxide have lower conductivity and higher corrosion-resistance than aluminum foil),
the second portion covering therewith at least a part of a surface of the first portion (C cover A as shown in Fig. 1).
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano, and further in view of Tanaka (JP2008-111218).
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, Nagano teaches the structure as set forth in claim 1, and Nagano further teaches an electromagnetic-wave blocking structure (structure in Fig. 1) is comprised of the structure as set forth in claim 1, and Nagano further teaches a system for blocking electromagnetic waves to be equipped on a traffic lane (col. 9, lns. 21-25: “…near automobile road…”).
Nagano does not explicitly teach the system for blocking electromagnetic waves to be equipped on the traffic lane on which an electronic toll collection system is formed, wherein the system includes an electromagnetic-wave blocking structure formed between the traffic lane and a second traffic lane neighboring the traffic lane, the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure prevents electric waves transmitted from an on-road antenna located above the second traffic lane and reflected from a vehicle driving on the second traffic lane, from reaching an on-road antenna located in the traffic lane; wherein the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure is in the form of a wall; wherein the wall has a height higher than the on-road antenna transmitting electric waves to a vehicle driving on the traffic lane. However, Tanaka teaches a system for blocking electromagnetic waves to be equipped on a traffic lane on which an electronic toll collection system (Fig. 13) is formed, wherein the system includes an electromagnetic-wave blocking structure (25A) formed between the traffic lane and a second traffic lane neighboring the traffic lane (see left lane for V1, V2 and right lane for V3, V4), the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure (25A) prevents electric waves (see waves from both 16G) transmitted from an on-road antenna (antenna on 16G where waves are emitting downward as shown in Fig. 13) located above the second traffic lane and reflected from a vehicle driving on the second traffic lane, from reaching an on-road antenna located in the traffic lane (25A blocks those waves); wherein the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure is in the form of a wall (25A is a wall); wherein the wall has a height higher than the on-road antenna transmitting electric waves to a vehicle driving on the traffic lane (25A clearly higher than 16G as shown in Fig. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the system for blocking electromagnetic waves to be equipped on the traffic lane on which an electronic toll collection system is formed, wherein the system includes an electromagnetic-wave blocking structure formed between the traffic lane and a second traffic lane neighboring the traffic lane, the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure prevents electric waves transmitted from an on-road antenna located above the second traffic lane and reflected from a vehicle driving on the second traffic lane, from reaching an on-road antenna located in the traffic lane; wherein the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure is in the form of a wall; wherein the wall has a height higher than the on-road antenna transmitting electric waves to a vehicle driving on the traffic lane in Nagano, as taught by Tanaka, in order to utilize the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure to prevent cross talk between neighboring ETC lanes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Tanaka, and further in view of Tsuda (JP2003-123111).
Regarding claim 18, Nagano in view of Tanaka teaches the system as set forth in claim 17. The modified Nagano above does not teach wherein the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure has a length equal to or greater than a length of a large-size vehicle. However, Tsuda teaches an electromagnetic wave blocking structure (11, 13, 14, 15, 16) has a length equal to or greater than a length of a large-size vehicle (11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 all shown to have greater length than the length of vehicles 3a, 3b in Figs. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electromagnetic-wave blocking structure has a length equal to or greater than a length of a large-size vehicle in Nagano in view of Tanaka, as taught by Tsuda, in order to prevent waves from the on-road antenna to leak to vehicle in the adjacent lane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights