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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 7/29/2024 and 1/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “when the radio wave reflector is in a flat state and is caused to reflect a radio wave”. This recitation is indefinite because the radio wave reflector can be in a state where it is never flat which renders all of the subsequent claims unnecessary. The term “when” is interpreted to read as a conditional statement. If the radio wave reflector is not flat then none of the technical features following this statement are required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekisui – of record and disclosed by IDS – “Developed transparent flexible radio wave reflection film for 5G communication”.
Regarding claim 1 Sekisui discloses a radio wave reflector for reflecting radio waves, wherein when the radio wave reflector is in a flat state and is caused to reflect a radio wave at an incident angle of an incident wave of 15 degrees or more and 75 degrees or less, the intensity of a reflective wave as specular reflection of the incident wave is −30 dB or more relative to the intensity of the incident wave at a frequency, the change rate of the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector curved along a curved surface with a curvature radius of 200 mm with respect to the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector in a flat state is −10% or more and 10% or less, and the radio wave reflector has a flexural modulus of 0.05 GPa or more and 4 GPa or less (Sekisui discloses a transparent flexible thin film reflector made of 4 layers which is used to reflect radio waves ).
Regarding claim 2 Sekisui further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the incident wave has any frequency of 2 GHz or more and 300 GHz or less (e.g., page 1, point 2).
Regarding claim 3 Sekisui does not explicitly disclose or require the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a Young's modulus of 0.01 GPa or more and 80 GPa or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a Young's modulus of 0.01 GPa or more and 80 GPa or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 4 Sekisui does not explicitly disclose or require the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a thickness of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a thickness of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 5 Sekisui further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which comprises at least a conductive thin film layer comprising an electric conductor for reflecting radio waves, and a substrate layer comprising a substrate and laminated to the conductive thin film layer (e.g., page 1, point 2).
Regarding claim 6 Sekisui further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 5, wherein the radio wave reflector comprises the conductive thin film layer, the substrate layer, a protective layer comprising a protective material for protecting the conductive thin film layer, and an adhesive layer comprising an adhesive for bonding the conductive thin film layer and the layer comprising the protective material, and the substrate layer, the conductive thin film layer, the adhesive layer, and the protective layer are laminated in this order (e.g., page 1, point 2).
Regarding claim 7 Sekisui further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector in a flat state is 0.003 Ω/□ or more and 10 Ω/□ or less (the examiner notes claims 1 and 7 are conditional statements that only apply if the radio wave reflector is in a flat state).
Regarding claim 8 Sekisui further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 6, wherein the protective layer is subjected to anti-glare treatment or anti-reflection treatment (the examiner notes claims 1 and 7 are conditional statements that only apply if the radio wave reflector is in a flat state).
Regarding claim 9 Sekisui further discloses a building material comprising the radio wave reflector of claim 1 (e.g., page 1, point 2).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bridgestone (EP 0186517) – of record and disclosed by IDS filed 1/02/2026.
Regarding claim 1 Bridgestone discloses a radio wave reflector for reflecting radio waves, wherein when the radio wave reflector is in a flat state and is caused to reflect a radio wave at an incident angle of an incident wave of 15 degrees or more and 75 degrees or less, the intensity of a reflective wave as specular reflection of the incident wave is −30 dB or more relative to the intensity of the incident wave at a frequency, the change rate of the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector curved along a curved surface with a curvature radius of 200 mm with respect to the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector in a flat state is −10% or more and 10% or less, and the radio wave reflector has a flexural modulus of 0.05 GPa or more and 4 GPa or less (Bridgestone discloses a transparent flexible thin film reflector made of 4 layers which is used to reflect radio waves. (Since the reflector is parabolic it is not flat and thus does not require the features claimed after “when the radio wave reflector is in a flat state”; see also page 1 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 2 Bridgestone further discloses or the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the incident wave has any frequency of 2 GHz or more and 300 GHz or less (e.g., page 1, line 24 – page 2 line 1).
Regarding claim 3 Bridgestone does not explicitly disclose or require the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a Young's modulus of 0.01 GPa or more and 80 GPa or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a Young's modulus of 0.01 GPa or more and 80 GPa or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 4 Bridgestone does not explicitly disclose or require the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a thickness of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less (e.g., page 5, see also examples 1 and 2 for some discussion on thicknesses).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which has a thickness of 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 5 Bridgestone further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, which comprises at least a conductive thin film layer comprising an electric conductor for reflecting radio waves, and a substrate layer comprising a substrate and laminated to the conductive thin film layer (e.g., Fig. 1, at 12, 16, 18, 20).
Regarding claim 6 Bridgestone further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 5, wherein the radio wave reflector comprises the conductive thin film layer, the substrate layer, a protective layer comprising a protective material for protecting the conductive thin film layer, and an adhesive layer comprising an adhesive for bonding the conductive thin film layer and the layer comprising the protective material, and the substrate layer, the conductive thin film layer, the adhesive layer, and the protective layer are laminated in this order (e.g., Fig. 1, at 12, 16, 18, 20).
Regarding claim 7 Bridgestone further discloses the radio wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the surface resistivity of the radio wave reflector in a flat state is 0.003 Ω/□ or more and 10 Ω/□ or less (the examiner notes claims 1 and 7 are conditional statements that only apply if the radio wave reflector is in a flat state).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/02/2026 prompted the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The IDS filed 1/02/2026 includes an International Search Report (ISR) that contains additional references and analysis considered highly relevant to the current application. The Examiner suggests an interview if it will help advance prosecution.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights