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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 18 has been withdrawn pursuant the restriction requirement.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2024 and 05/06/2026 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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 6, 12,13 and 17 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.
The term “thin film” in claims 6 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin film” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, claims 6 and 17 recite the limitation, “so that the electric-wave reflector is a flexible sheet” which is unclear as the thickness of the sheet is not solely responsible for its flexibility. This limitation should be re-written.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “10 mass% or more and 35 mass%”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what mass% represents. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the limitation means 10 times mass% or is 10% of the mass, etc. Same applies to the 35 mass%. This limitation should be re-written.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein first dielectric". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14-17 are identical in scope to corresponding claims 3-6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHODA et al. (US 20240040758 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 20150277099 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SHODA discloses [Note: what SHODA fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
An electric-wave reflector (see Fig. 1, 10) comprising;
a first dielectric layer (see Fig. 1, design layer 5 includes a resin protective layer which is a dielectric, further see paragraphs 0054-0055),
a resistance layer (see Fig. 1, resistance layer 2),
a second dielectric layer (see Fig. 1, dielectric layer 2), and
a reflective layer (see Fig. 1, electromagnetic wave suppression layer 2 is a dielectric layer) that are stacked sequentially from a surface of the electric-wave reflector on which electric waves are to be incident (see Fig. 1 where these layers are stacked sequentially, further see Fig. 6(a) which includes the resin layer 8),
.
Hong discloses,
wherein a thickness d of the second dielectric layer satisfies d = λ/2, where λ is a center wavelength of electric waves to be reflected by the electric-wave reflector (see paragraph 0094, “In some implementations, one or more dielectric layers with a total thickness of about λ/2 may be disposed on the surface of the absorber layer and/or the mirrored surface. As such, the white state may correspond to a configuration wherein the absorber layer is placed at the first null of the standing wave from the mirrored surface of the mirror stack 705.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of SHODA. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a flexible multi-layer electromechanical stack. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to design the thickness of the second layer to reduce side lobes by the system and thereby reduce signal leakage.
Regarding claim 2, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein a center frequency of the electric waves to be reflected by the electric-wave reflector is 100 GHz or more and 450 GHz or less (see paragraph 0038, “The thickness of the electromagnetic wave suppression layer 3 is preferred to be, for example, 50 μm to 80 μm for the terahertz 300 GHz band”).
Regarding claim 4, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the second layer is a adhesive (see paragraph 0039, “The electromagnetic wave suppression layer 3 may be formed of an adhesive or cohesive resin material.”).
Regarding claim 5, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the resistance layer is any of a conductive organic polymer film, a metal film, and a doped film (see paragraph 0033, “the resistance layer 2 is preferred to be formed of a conductive polymer”).
Regarding claim 6, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer, the resistance layer, the second dielectric layer, and the reflective layer are each a thin film, so that the electric-wave reflector is a flexible (see paragraphs 0033-0034, 41 and 57 which indicate the flexibility of the layers).
Regarding claim 7, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the resistance layer has a surface electric resistance less than a surface electric resistance of the first dielectric layer (see paragraph 0032, “The resistance layer 2 is a layer for guiding the electromagnetic waves incident from outside to the electromagnetic wave suppression layer 3. In other words, the resistance layer 2 is a layer for performing impedance matching according to the environment where the designed electromagnetic wave suppressor 10 is used or the characteristics of the design layer 1. For example, if the designed electromagnetic wave suppressor 10 is used in air (impedance: 377 Ω/sq), and if the real part of the complex permittivity (relative permittivity) of the electromagnetic wave suppression layer 3 is 2.9, and the thickness of the layer 3 is 500 μm, a large return attenuation can be achieved by determining the sheet resistance of the resistance layer 2 to be in the range of 270 to 500 Ω/sq (more preferably 350 to 430 Ω/sq).”, where it well-known that a dielectric material (first dielectric layer) has a much higher surface electric resistance than the surface electric resistance of a resistance layer in order to all the passage of the signal into the structure, further supported by paragraph 0021, “The design layer 1 is required not to hinder the performance of the electromagnetic wave suppressor, as much as possible”).
Regarding claim 8, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer is a metal foil (see paragraph 0041, “A film of an inorganic or organic material having electrical conductivity may be formed on a substrate. From the perspective flexibility, film formability, stability, sheet resistance, and cost reduction, a laminate film including a PET film and an aluminum layer deposited on the PET film (Al-deposited PET film) is preferred to be used as a reflective layer.”).
Regarding claim 9, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer is a conductive mesh (see paragraph 0041 where nanowires film are a types of conductive mesh).
Regarding claim 10, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein a difference in thickness between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is less than 100 microns (see paragraphs 0021 and 0038-0039 give examples of the thickness of each layer respectively and the difference in those thicknesses are less than 100 microns).
Regarding claim 11, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the resistance layer is a polymer film composed of one or two selected from the group consisting of polypyrrole, poly(3-methoxythiophene), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), poly(2-aniline sulfonic acid), and poly(3-aniline sulfonic acid) (see paragraph 0033, “From the perspective of flexibility, film formability, stability, and seat resistance, the resistance layer 2 is preferred to be formed of a conductive polymer containing polyethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT). For example, the resistance layer 2 may be formed of a mixture (PEDOT/PSS) of polyethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT) and polystyrene sulfonate (PSS).”).
Regarding claim 12, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein a content of a conductive organic polymer in the resistance layer is 10 mass% or more and 35 mass% based on a total mass of solids contained in the resistance layer (see paragraph 0070, “A reflective type electromagnetic wave suppressor whose layers were formed of the materials shown in Table 1 was prepared as follows. Specifically, an electromagnetic wave suppression layer (thickness: 260 μm) was formed using a coating liquid containing 70 parts by mass of acrylic adhesive with respect to 100 parts by mass of barium titanate (BaTiO.sub.4). The real part of the complex permittivity of the electromagnetic wave suppression layer was 10.8 and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity thereof was 0.74. A resistance layer containing PEDOT/PSS (sheet resistance: 430 Ω/sq) was provided to the surface of the electromagnetic wave suppression layer. An interior decorative sheet as a design layer was bonded to the surface of the resistance layer. A reflective layer was provided to the surface of the electromagnetic wave suppression layer facing away from the surface provided with the resistance layer.”).
Regarding claim 13, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein first dielectric includes a surface dielectric layer and a resin substrate, wherein the resin substrate is between the surface dielectric layer and the reflective layer (see Fig. 6a layers 8, 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the second dielectric layer is adhesive (see paragraph 0039, “The electromagnetic wave suppression layer 3 may be formed of an adhesive or cohesive resin material.”).
Regarding claim 16, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the resistance layer is any of a conductive organic polymer film, a metal film, and a doped film (see paragraph 0033, “Examples of the organic material having electrical conductivity include polythiophene derivatives, polyacetylene derivatives, polyaniline derivatives, and polypyrrole derivatives. From the perspective of flexibility, film formability, stability, and seat resistance, the resistance layer 2 is preferred to be formed of a conductive polymer containing polyethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT). For example, the resistance layer 2 may be formed of a mixture (PEDOT/PSS) of polyethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT) and polystyrene sulfonate (PSS)”).
Regarding claim 17, SHODA further discloses
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer, the resistance layer, the second dielectric layer, and the reflective layer are each in a thin film, so that the electric-wave reflector is a flexible sheet (see paragraphs 0033-0034, 41 and 57 which indicate the flexibility of the layers).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHODA et al. (US 20240040758 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 20150277099 A1) further in view of SHIRASAKI (US 20220406727 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of SHODA and Hong discloses [Note: what the combination of SHODA and Hong fails to disclose is strike-through]
The electric-wave reflector according to claim 1,
SHIRASAKI discloses,
wherein the resistance layer has a surface electric resistance of 80 ohm/sq or more and 250 ohm/sq or less (see paragraph 0036, “The sheet resistance of the first part 23Ac of the electrical resistance layer 23A may be in a range of about 20 to 100 Ω/sq… Owing to the mesh structure, the sheet resistance of the electrical resistance layer 23A, which originally has a sheet resistance of about 3 Ω/sq, is as high as about 20 to 100 Ω/sq, and the rate of absorption of spurious waves in the electrical resistance layer is improved accordingly.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SHIRASAKI into the invention of SHODA in view of Hong. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose a flexible multi-layer electromechanical stack. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the rate of absorption of spurious waves and to create a more flexible design.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 above is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TOYODA (US 20200413578 A1) discloses a flexible electromagnetic wave absorbing sheet with a layered structure (see Fig. 1).
TOYODA (US 20180332742 A1) discloses a flexible electromagnetic wave absorbing sheet with a layered structure where the dielectric layer is a polymer film selected and dimensioned to tune the target wavelength. The opposite-side conductive layer is made more conductive than the resistive layer to create the reflection conditions needed for destructive interference and absorption. Optional coating layers further protect the functional layers and prevent migration from the dielectric. [0007], [0010], [0031]-[0035], [0044]-[0046].
Chang et al. (US 20160274436 A1) discloses a multi-layer electromagnetic reflector which includes a plurality of dielectric layers and resistance layers (6b, 12a and 12b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights