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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2025-08-14 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Substrate: found in at least claim 1, line 1.
Silver particle: found in at least claim 1, line 2.
Primary particle: found in at least claim 3, line 3.
Secondary particle: found in at least claim 3, line 2.
Electromagnetic wave transmission layer: found in at least claim 1, line 3.
Millimeter wave sensor or infrared sensor: found in at least claim 6, line 2
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/866,632 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for because they contain subject matter that is not patentably distinct as outlined in the following table:
Application #18/866,650 (instant application)
Application #18/866,632 (reference application)
Claim 1: A sensor cover comprising
a substrate, and
a silver particle layer provided on the substrate, the silver particle layer comprising a silver particle,
wherein the silver particle has an electromagnetic wave transmission layer on a surface thereof.
Claim 1: A layered body comprising
a substrate, and
a silver particle layer provided on the substrate, the silver particle layer comprising a silver particle,
wherein the silver particle has an electromagnetic wave transmission layer on a surface thereof.
Claim 2: The sensor cover according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is an organic layer.
Claim 2: The layered body according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is an organic layer.
Claim 3: The sensor cover according to claim 1,
wherein the silver particle comprises a secondary particle, and the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is provided on a surface of a primary particle of the silver particle.
Claim 3: The layered body according to claim 1,
wherein the silver particle comprises a secondary particle, and the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is provided on a surface of a primary particle of the silver particle.
Claim 4: The sensor cover according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a millimeter wave transmission layer.
Claim 4: The layered body according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a millimeter wave transmission layer.
Claim 5: The sensor cover according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a layer that transmits at least a part of wavelengths in a range from infrared to visible light.
Claim 5: The layered body according to claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a layer that transmits at least a part of wavelengths in a range from infrared to visible light.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 3 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 3 states “wherein the silver particle comprises a secondary particle…” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how a single silver particle may comprise a secondary particle. As best that can be understood from the specification, there exists a plurality of silver particles within the silver particle layer and secondary particles also exist within the silver particle layer. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation to read – wherein the silver particle layer comprises a secondary particle --.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US-20190194479-A1 – From applicant IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, a sensor cover comprising a substrate (Fig 1: substrate, 20), and
a silver particle layer provided on the substrate (Fig 1: decorative coating film, 1), the silver particle layer comprising a silver particle (Fig 1: silver alloy particle, 1a),
wherein the silver particle has an electromagnetic wave transmission layer on a surface thereof (Fig 1: binding resin, 1b | Para [0042] teaches the layer has favorable millimeter wave transmission properties).
Regarding Claim 2, the sensor cover according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is an organic layer (Para [0041] teaches a resin layer).
Regarding Claim 3, the sensor cover according to claim 1, wherein the silver particle comprises a secondary particle (Fig 2: nickel oxide, 1d), and the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is provided on a surface of a primary particle of the silver particle (Can be seen in Figs 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 4, the sensor cover according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a millimeter wave transmission layer (Para [0042] teaches the layer has favorable millimeter wave transmission properties).
Regarding Claim 5, the sensor cover according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave transmission layer is a layer that transmits at least a part of wavelengths in a range from infrared to visible light (Para [0006] teaches it is known in the art for silver alloy particles with a binding resin have light transmission properties).
Regarding Claim 6, the sensor cover according to claim 1, the sensor cover being a cover for a millimeter wave sensor or an infrared sensor (Figs 3 and 4 show the silver alloy layer, 1, and substrate, 20, act as a cover for a radar device, D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights