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 .
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 19 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 19 recites the limitation "the filler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 29 and 31 recite “any of claim 1”. It should be “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 16-17, 20, 22, 24, 27-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (WO 2021/006186) (see Sasaki (US 2022/0276377) for citation).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 20, 24, 27, 29 and 31, Sasaki discloses radar transmissive system (0001) comprising a substrate layer comprising a first surface and a second surface positioned opposite the first surface (42, fig. 1, 0019) wherein the second surface is configured to be directed towards a radar system (fig. 1, 0060), a paint layer, i.e. first layer, applied over at least a portion of the first surface of the substrate (44, fig. 1, 0019) and an antireflection layer, i.e. second layer, applied over at least a portion of the second surface of the substrate (1, fig. 1, 0019, 0060) wherein the second layer comprising polyurethane polymer or fluoropolymer (0036) and having a thickness of 1 mm (1000 microns) or less (0031) wherein the relative permittivity is 2 to 7 in the frequency range of 74.5 to 81 GHz (abstract, 0025-0027). Sasaki further discloses that the substrate is bumper (0001) and the first coating layer comprises resin, i.e. film forming resin, and pigment (0052). Given that Sasaki discloses the same radar system, including the same materials, as claimed in present claims, it is clear that the radar system of Sasaki would inherently have the same properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, wherein the second layer is a coating and is in direct contact with the substrate layer (fig. 1, 0019).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, given that Sasaki does not disclose any variation in the second layer thickness, it is clear that the second layer of Sasaki is uniform.
Regarding claim 22, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises a multilayer film comprising an intermediate layer, i.e. adhesive layer, (0052, 0054).
Regarding claim 28, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, further comprising PSA layer, i.e. adhesion promoter layer, applied over at least a portion of the first surface (0036).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2022/0276377).
Regarding claim 18, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises pigment or dye, i.e. filler, (0052).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of filler is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the color is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of filler such as pigment or dye, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of pigment or dye in layer to obtain the desired color (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2022/0276377) in view of Kimura et al. (JP 7188628).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki discloses the radar transmissive system of claim 1, but fails to disclose filler comprises metal oxide or metal titanate.
Kimura discloses white paint discloses coloring material such as titanium oxide to obtain white color (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use white pigment such as titanium oxide of Kimura in the paint of Sasaki to obtain white paint.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights