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 .
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 12, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al (WO 2007/142125A), hereinafter Sakai. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 12, Sakai (Figures 1-6, para [0025] to [0059]) teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member transmitting visible light and controlling a reflection direction or a transmission direction of electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band, the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member comprising:
a dielectric substrate 11 transmitting visible light;
a plurality of resonant elements 13 placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate, transmitting visible light and resonating with the electromagnetic waves; and
one or more dummy patterns placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate, placed in a region other than a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, transmitting visible light, and including non-conductive material (para [0049]), when the antenna 13 has a mesh shape, it is more preferable to form a mesh-like pattern having the same pattern as the antenna pattern of the antenna 13 around the antenna 13 and having no conductivity).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 12, Sakai (para [0049]) teaches that the resonant element 13 includes a mesh structure.
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 12, Sakai (para [0056]) teaches a protective film or protective member transmitting visible light is placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate so as to cover the resonant element.
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.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 2020/0373653 A1), hereinafter Suzuki. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki (Figures 18-22) teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member transmitting visible light and controlling a reflection direction or a transmission direction of electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band, the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member comprising:
a dielectric substrate 11 transmitting visible light;
a plurality of resonant elements 20 placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate, transmitting visible light and resonating with the electromagnetic waves; and
one or more dummy patterns 30 placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate, placed in a region other than a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and transmitting visible light.
Suzuki does not explicitly mention that a size of the dummy pattern is 0.1 times or less of a wavelength of the electromagnetic waves.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arbitrary select the size of the dummy pattern to be 0.1 times or less or a wavelength of the electromagnetic waves to achieve a desired reflection properties or desired transmission properties suitable for a specific application.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 11, Suzuki (para [0233] teaches “a difference between the aperture ratio A2 of the dummy pattern region 30 and the aperture ratio A1 of the antenna pattern region 20 (|A2−A1|) is preferably in a range of more than 0% and 7% or less, and is more preferably in a range of more than 0% and 1% or less”) which corresponds to a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are approximately equal.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 11, Suzuki (para [0285]) teaches that the resonant element 20 includes a mesh structure.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 15, Suzuki (para [0233]) teaches “a difference between the aperture ratio A2 of the dummy pattern region 30 and the aperture ratio A1 of the antenna pattern region 20 (|A2−A1|) is preferably in a range of more than 0% and 7% or less, and is more preferably in a range of more than 0% and 1% or less”) which corresponds to an aperture ratio of a metal mesh constituting the resonant element, and an aperture ratio of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 11, Suzuki (para [0231]) teaches that the resonant element and the dummy pattern include the same material.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 14, Sakai teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 12, except explicitly mention that a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal.
Suzuki (Figures 18-22) teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member comprising antenna patterns 20 and dummy patterns 30 disposed on a transparent substrate 11 and (para [0233] teaches “a difference between the aperture ratio A2 of the dummy pattern region 30 and the aperture ratio A1 of the antenna pattern region 20 (|A2−A1|) is preferably in a range of more than 0% and 7% or less, and is more preferably in a range of more than 0% and 1% or less”) which corresponds to a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are approximately equal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member of Sakai such that a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal, as taught by Suzuki, doing so would effectively making both the resonant elements and dummy patterns to be hardly visible and the presence of the resonant elements pattern hardly recognizable with the naked eye (para [0233]).
Regarding claim 18, Sakai teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 16, except explicitly mention that an aperture ratio of a metal mesh constituting the resonant element, and an aperture ratio of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal.
Suzuki (Figures 18-22) teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member comprising antenna patterns 20 and dummy patterns 30 disposed on a transparent substrate 11 and (para [0233] teaches “a difference between the aperture ratio A2 of the dummy pattern region 30 and the aperture ratio A1 of the antenna pattern region 20 (|A2−A1|) is preferably in a range of more than 0% and 7% or less, and is more preferably in a range of more than 0% and 1% or less”) which corresponds to a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member of Sakai such that a visible light transmittance of a region where the plurality of resonant elements is placed, and a visible light transmittance of a region where the dummy pattern is placed are equal, as taught by Suzuki, doing so would effectively making both the resonant elements and dummy patterns to be hardly visible and the presence of the resonant elements pattern hardly recognizable with the naked eye (para [0233]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sakai.
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 11, except explicitly mention that a protective member transmitting visible light is placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate so as to cover the resonant element.
Sakai (Figures 1-6) teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member comprising resonant elements and dummy patterns (para [0049]) disposed on a transparent substrate 11 and (para [0056]) teaches a protective film or protective member transmitting visible light is placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate so as to cover the resonant element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member of Suzuki with a protective member transmitting visible light is placed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate so as to cover the resonant element, as taught by Sakai, doing so would effectively protect the resonant elements from potential damage.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugiura et al (JP 2008-219125A), hereinafter Sugiura. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 24, Suzuki teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member, as applied to claim 11, except explicitly mention that the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member being placed on one surface of the transparent substrate.
Sugiura (Figures 1 and 2, para [0019], [0022] and [0023]) teaches a transparent substrate equipped with a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member of Suzuki on a transparent substrate, as taught by Sugiura, doing so would provide surfaces such as vehicle windows with embedded antennas without obstructing visibility.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Sugiura.
Regarding claim 25, Sakai teaches a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member, as applied to claim 12, except explicitly mention that the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member being placed on one surface of the transparent substrate.
Sugiura (Figures 1 and 2, para [0019], [0022] and [0023]) teaches a transparent substrate equipped with a transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the transparent electromagnetic waves controlling member of Sakai on a transparent substrate, as taught by Sugiura, doing so would provide surfaces such as vehicle windows with embedded antennas without obstructing visibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 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:
Regarding claims 22 and 23, neither Sakai nor Suzuki specifically teaches that a grounding layer is included on the dielectric substrate, on a surface opposite side to the resonant element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2020520611A discloses a device comprising an antenna and dummy layer disposed on a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845