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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/18/2024. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 and 06/27/2025 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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation, “wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, a ratio of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm to a total of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm, and the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more observed per 10 pmx10 pm of the cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber is 80% or more.” This phrase is indefinite as it is unclear what is the scope of “maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm to a total of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm”. The applicant should amend the claim to recite precisely and clearly the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of prior art search claim 2 is interpreted as:
The electromagnetic wave absorber according to claim 1, wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, a ratio of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm to a total of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more observed per 10 pmx10 pm of the cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber is 80% or more.
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 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US9276326B2) in view of Zhang (WO2021173664A1).
Regarding claim 1 Hirose disclose: An electromagnetic wave absorber , comprising fibrous carbon, wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a complex permittivity with a real part of from 6 to 30 and an imaginary part of from 1 to 25 at a frequency of 24 GHz (Page 5: “With respect to the electromagnetic wave absorption characteristics of a wave absorber, dielectric characteristics dominate in a frequency range of from several to several tens of gigahertz while electrical conduction characteristics dominate in a frequency range of from several tens to several hundreds of gigahertz. The wave absorber of the invention, which contains cement and carbon nanotubes, is characterized by having an absolute value of a complex relative permittivity [(∈′.sup.2+∈″.sup.2).sup.0.5] in the range of from 2.0 to 10.0 in a frequency range of 1 to 110 GHz and a minimum value of a dissipation factor (tan δ) of 0.35 or greater in the same frequency range. According to the above described structure, the wave absorber of the invention exhibits excellent wave absorption characteristics in a frequency range of several to several tens of gigahertz based on the dielectric characteristics derived from the resistance loss and dielectric loss of the cement/carbon nanotube composite. In a frequency range of several tens to several hundreds of gigahertz, on the other hand, the wave absorber exhibits excellent wave absorption characteristics based on the electrical conduction characteristics that are developed by the electrically conductive paths formed of the carbon nanotubes and ionic conduction by the ions present in the water in voids of the cement matrix. Thus, the wave absorber of the invention shows excellent wave absorption characteristics in a broad frequency range of from 1 to 110 GHz.”).
Hirose does not teach “and wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, the number of fiber bundles of the fibrous carbon observed on a cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber, the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more, is 10 or less per 10 pmx10 pm “.
However, Zhang in the analogous teaches: and wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, the number of fiber bundles of the fibrous carbon observed on a cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber (figure 3A), the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more, is 10 or less per 10 pmx10 pm (Para 0079: “In some embodiments, the CNSs are provided in the form of a flake material after being removed from the growth substrate upon which the carbon nanostructures are initially formed. As used herein, the term “flake material” refers to a discrete particle having finite dimensions. Shown in FIG. 3A, for instance, is an illustrative depiction of a CNS flake material after isolation of the CNS from a growth substrate. Flake structure 100 can have first dimension 110 that is in a range from about 1 nm to about 35 pm thick, particularly about 1 nm to about 500 nm thick, including any value in between and any fraction thereof. Flake structure 100 can have second dimension 120 that is in a range from about 1 micron to about 750 microns tall, including any value in between and any fraction thereof. Flake structure 100 can have third dimension 130 that can be in a range from about 1 micron to about 750 microns, including any value in between and any fraction thereof. Two or all of dimensions 110, 120 and 130 can be the same or different.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Zhang to incorporate the feature of: and wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, the number of fiber bundles of the fibrous carbon observed on a cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber, the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more, is 10 or less per 10 pmx10 pm. Hirose and Zhang are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose design of electromagnetic wave absorbers. However, Hirose fails to disclose a feature of fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more, is 10 or less per 10 pmx10 pm. This feature is disclosed by Zhang. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Zhang to incorporate the feature of: and wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, the number of fiber bundles of the fibrous carbon observed on a cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber, the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more, is 10 or less per 10 pmx10 pm as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Hirose further teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon and a base material (Page 5: “In general, cement sets into a hard mass through a hydration reaction with water. The voids of the hard mass contain free water containing such ions as Na.sup.+, K.sup.+, Ca.sup.2+, and OH.sup.−. The presence of these ions develops electrical conductivity. Because carbon nanotubes are an electrically conductive fibrous material with high bulk density, they easily connect to one another to form electrically conductive paths in the matrix.”) , and wherein the base material contains at least one kind selected from a resin, an elastomer, and a rubber (Page 3: “For example, Japanese patent 4697829 proposes a carbon nanotube composite molded material composed of a matrix and carbon nanotubes aligned in the matrix along a given direction, the carbon nanotubes being uncovered with a ferromagnetic material. Compared with carbon nanotube composite material in which carbon nanotubes are randomly dispersed, the proposed material is described as having high electrical conductivity with a smaller amount of carbon nanotubes and, when applied to wave absorption, exhibits anisotropy and is therefore useful for wave absorption. However, it is difficult with the structure described in Japanese patent 4697829 to obtain excellent wave absorbing characteristics in the broad frequency band of microwaves and millimeter waves. According to Japanese patent 4697829, the contemplated matrix materials are organic materials, such as thermoplastic resins, curing resins, rubbers, and thermoplastic elastomers. It is unfeasible with such matrix materials to provide wave absorbers withstanding a high power emission test.”).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Zhang further teaches: wherein the base material contains at least one kind selected from a silicone resin, a silicone elastomer, and a silicone rubber (Para 0016: “In some of its aspects, the invention relates to silicone-based compositions that contain silicone based polymers and carbon nanostructures (CNSs). In some embodiments, compositions or articles contain carbon nanostructures, fragments of carbon nanostructures, fractured carbon nanotubes, elongated CNS strands, and/or dispersed CNSs distributed in a silicone-based component. [ 0017 ] As used herein, the term “carbon nanostructure” or “CNS” refers to a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs), multiwall (also known as multi-walled) carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), in many cases, that can exist as a polymeric structure by being interdigitated, branched, crosshnked, and/or sharing common walls with one another.”).
The reason for modifying Hirose with Zhang is the same as one given in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Hirose further teaches: wherein the fibrous carbon is a carbon nanotube (Abstract: “An electromagnetic wave absorber contains cement and carbon nanotubes and has an absolute value of a complex relative permittivity in a range of from 2.0 to 10.0 in a frequency range of from 1 to 110 GHz and a minimum value of a dissipation factor of 0.35 or greater in the frequency range of from 1 to 110 GHz.”).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has an elongation at break measured in conformity with JIS K 6251:2017 of 150% or more (Para 0029: “The cured polymer composite may have one or more of a tensile strength greater than 0.5 MPa or from 0.5MPa to lOMPa, an elongation at break of 40% to 300%, and a volume resistivity of less than 10.sup.5 ohm. cm. The cured polymer may be crosslinked. The composition may be a cured polymer composition having a shielding efficiency equivalent to at least 35dB for a 2 mm thick sample at 1.5 GHz. The carbon nanostructures may be coated or in a mixture with a binder.”).
The reason for modifying Hirose with Zhang is the same as one given in claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US9276326B2) I view of Zhang (WO2021173664A1) and further in view of Nagamune (WO2017110096A1).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Hirose does not teach “wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass% “.
However, Nagamune in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass% (Abstract: “An electromagnetic wave absorption material comprises: fibrous carbon nanostructures; and an insulating material, wherein a content C of the fibrous carbon nanostructures when a content of the insulating material is 100 parts by mass is 5 parts by mass or more and 15 parts by mass or less, or, in the case where the fibrous carbon nanostructures are fibrous carbon nanostructures that exhibit a convex upward shape in a t-plot obtained from an adsorption isotherm, the content C is 0.3 parts by mass or more and 0.8 parts by mass or less, and the electromagnetic wave absorption material absorbs an electromagnetic wave in a frequency domain of more than 20 GHz.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Nagamune to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass%. Hirose and Nagamune are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the design of electromagnetic wave absorber. However, Hirose fails to disclose a feature of electromagnetic wave absorber with the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass%. This feature is disclosed by Nagamune. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Nagamune to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass% as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Hirose and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hirose further teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon and a base material (Page 5: “In general, cement sets into a hard mass through a hydration reaction with water. The voids of the hard mass contain free water containing such ions as Na.sup.+, K.sup.+, Ca.sup.2+, and OH.sup.−. The presence of these ions develops electrical conductivity. Because carbon nanotubes are an electrically conductive fibrous material with high bulk density, they easily connect to one another to form electrically conductive paths in the matrix.”) , wherein the fibrous carbon is a carbon nanotube (Abstract: “An electromagnetic wave absorber contains cement and carbon nanotubes and has an absolute value of a complex relative permittivity in a range of from 2.0 to 10.0 in a frequency range of from 1 to 110 GHz and a minimum value of a dissipation factor of 0.35 or greater in the frequency range of from 1 to 110 GHz.”).
Zhang teaches: wherein the base material contains at least one kind selected from a silicone resin, a silicone elastomer, and a silicone rubber (Para 0016: “In some of its aspects, the invention relates to silicone-based compositions that contain silicone based polymers and carbon nanostructures (CNSs). In some embodiments, compositions or articles contain carbon nanostructures, fragments of carbon nanostructures, fractured carbon nanotubes, elongated CNS strands, and/or dispersed CNSs distributed in a silicone-based component. [ 0017 ] As used herein, the term “carbon nanostructure” or “CNS” refers to a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs), multiwall (also known as multi-walled) carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), in many cases, that can exist as a polymeric structure by being interdigitated, branched, crosshnked, and/or sharing common walls with one another.”)
Hirose does not teach “: and wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass%”.
However, Nagamune in the analogous arts teaches: and wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber comprises the fibrous carbon in a content of from 0.2 mass% to 1.5 mass% (Abstract: “An electromagnetic wave absorption material comprises: fibrous carbon nanostructures; and an insulating material, wherein a content C of the fibrous carbon nanostructures when a content of the insulating material is 100 parts by mass is 5 parts by mass or more and 15 parts by mass or less, or, in the case where the fibrous carbon nanostructures are fibrous carbon nanostructures that exhibit a convex upward shape in a t-plot obtained from an adsorption isotherm, the content C is 0.3 parts by mass or more and 0.8 parts by mass or less, and the electromagnetic wave absorption material absorbs an electromagnetic wave in a frequency domain of more than 20 GHz.”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US9276326B2) I view of Zhang (WO2021173664A1) and further in view of Hashimoto (JP2008016783A).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Hirose does not teach “wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm“.
However, Hashimoto in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm (Pages 4-5: “The specific gravity of the radio wave absorber is preferably 1 to 2, and the bending strength is preferably 5 MPa or more. In order to manufacture the radio wave absorber having a specific gravity of less than 1, a special manufacturing method such as foaming is required, and the bending strength is extremely small, which makes the handling inconvenient. On the other hand, when the specific gravity is more than 2, there is a problem that the weight of the radio wave absorber itself increases and the workability is lowered. In such a wave absorber having a thickness of 2 mm to 5 mm and a specific gravity of 1 to 2, the type and blending ratio of the raw material powder are adjusted so that the bending strength is 5 MPa or more from the viewpoint of obtaining good workability.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Hashimoto to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm. Hirose and Hashimoto are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the design of electromagnetic wave absorbers. However, Hirose fails to disclose a feature of electromagnetic wave absorber that has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm. This feature is disclosed by Hashimoto. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Hashimoto to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Hirose does not teach “wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a specific gravity of 2.5 or less “.
However, Hashimoto in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a specific gravity of 2.5 or less (Pages 4-5: “The specific gravity of the radio wave absorber is preferably 1 to 2, and the bending strength is preferably 5 MPa or more. In order to manufacture the radio wave absorber having a specific gravity of less than 1, a special manufacturing method such as foaming is required, and the bending strength is extremely small, which makes the handling inconvenient. On the other hand, when the specific gravity is more than 2, there is a problem that the weight of the radio wave absorber itself increases and the workability is lowered. In such a wave absorber having a thickness of 2 mm to 5 mm and a specific gravity of 1 to 2, the type and blending ratio of the raw material powder are adjusted so that the bending strength is 5 MPa or more from the viewpoint of obtaining good workability. ”).
The reason for modifying Hirose with Hashimoto is the same as one given in claim 9 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US9276326B2) in view of Zhang (WO2021173664A1) and further in view of Odajima (JP2004335652A).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Hirose does not teach “wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a total light transmittance measured in conformity with ISO 13468 of 20% or less “.
However, Odajima in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a total light transmittance measured in conformity with ISO 13468 of 20% or less (Para 0040: “Furthermore, since the film mask 4 is vacuum-adhered to the photoresist layer 3 by the action of negative pressure using the exposure jig 40, it is possible to obtain a good electromagnetic wave shield having a measured value variation of light transmittance of 5% or less. Becomes possible. To explain this point, it is an important requirement that the film mask 4 be brought into close contact with the photoresist layer 3 in order to reduce the variation of the measured value to 5% or less.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Odajima to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a total light transmittance measured in conformity with ISO 13468 of 20% or less. Hirose and Odajima are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the design of electromagnetic wave absorbers. However, Hirose fails to disclose a feature of electromagnetic wave absorber has a total light transmittance of 20% or less. This feature is disclosed by Odajima. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Odajima to incorporate the feature of: wherein the electromagnetic wave absorber has a total light transmittance measured in conformity with ISO 13468 of 20% or less as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US9276326B2) in view of Zhang (WO2021173664A1) and further in view of Ito (JP2003078276A).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Hirose does not teach “and an electromagnetic wave reflection layer formed on one surface side of the electromagnetic wave absorber “.
However, Ito in the analogous arts teaches: and an electromagnetic wave reflection layer formed on one surface side of the electromagnetic wave absorber (Abstract: “To provide a radio wave absorber for absorbing a radio wave having a frequency being shielded selectively in which the thickness can be reduced as compared with a conventional λ/4 type radio wave absorber. SOLUTION: The radio wave absorber 10 comprises a dielectric 15 having one side on which a radio wave absorbing surface 12 exhibiting a phase regulating function is formed and the opposite side on which a radio wave reflecting surface 14 is formed.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Ito to incorporate the feature of: and an electromagnetic wave reflection layer formed on one surface side of the electromagnetic wave absorber. Hirose and Ito are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the design of electromagnetic wave absorbers. However, Hirose fails to disclose a feature of and an electromagnetic wave reflection layer formed on one surface side of the electromagnetic wave absorber. This feature is disclosed by Ito. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hirose with Ito to incorporate the feature of: and an electromagnetic wave reflection layer formed on one surface side of the electromagnetic wave absorber as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if:
1) rewritten to overcome the 112b rejection and
2) rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Hirose and Zhang disclose all the limitation of claim 1. , wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, a ratio of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm to a total of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm, and the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more observed per 10 pmx10 pm of the cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber is 80% or more.
In reference to depend/independent claim 2, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 2. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “wherein, when the electromagnetic wave absorber is cut, a ratio of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm to a total of the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 5 nm or more and less than 100 nm, and the number of the fiber bundles each having a maximum diameter of 100 nm or more observed per 10 pmx10 pm of the cut surface of the electromagnetic wave absorber is 80% or more.“
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Resha H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights