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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 15, 17, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagaoka et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20250110265), hereinafter known as Nagaoka.
Regarding claim 6, Nagaoka discloses (Figs. 1-3) a reflecting structure (10) including a frequency selective reflector reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band in a direction different from a regular reflection direction (see Fig. 1), the reflecting structure comprising: a substrate (11); and a plurality of the frequency selective reflectors (131) disposed side by side on one surface of the substrate (see Fig. 3), wherein two adjacent sides in at least one of the frequency selective reflectors are aligned with two adjacent sides in the substrate (see Fig. 3); and a distance between adjacent the frequency selective reflectors is less than 1/2 of a wavelength of the electromagnetic waves (see Fig. 3, center to center is ½ wavelength, distance between must be less).
Regarding claim 8, Nagaoka discloses (Figs. 1-3) the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member (13) reflecting the electromagnetic waves, in the reflecting member, a plurality of reflective elements with different sizes is arranged (see Fig. 3), and an arrangement of the reflective elements in the plurality of the frequency selective reflectors differs from one another (see Fig, arrangement varies).
Regarding claim 15, Nagaoka discloses (Figs. 1-3) the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member (13) reflecting the electromagnetic waves, and the reflecting member includes a reflection phase controlling function controlling a reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves ([0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Nagaoka discloses (Figs. 1-3) when a reflection intensity of the electromagnetic waves in a reflecting structure in which the reflective elements are disposed in the end part region where adjacent the frequency selective reflectors face to each other is regarded as 100%, a reflection intensity of the electromagnetic waves is over 85% (the Examiner has reason to believe that “a reflection intensity of the electromagnetic waves is over 85%”; therefore, this limitation, which refers entirely to a property or function of the explicitly recited structure of 17, which structure, as described herein, reads on the reflecting structure of Nagaoka, is presumed inherent to the reflecting structure of Nagaoka, as permitted by the legal principles outlined in MPEP 2112.01(I); for further information see also In Re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (CAFC 1997), which states that: "A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. . . . Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk . . . As our predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Regarding claim 38, wherein the substrate includes a part in which a part of the substrate is cut (see Figs. 1-3).
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) 7, 16, 37, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka in view of Lindmark (U.S. Patent Application No. 20240145905), hereinafter known as Lindmark.
Regarding claim 7, Nagaoka teaches the limitations of claim 6, but does not teach adhesive.
Lindmark teaches wherein an adhesive part is disposed between adjacent the frequency selective reflectors ([0223]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the adhesive of Lindmark between the reflectors of Nagaoka since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Adhesive provides a method of attaching the reflector to a surface.
Regarding claim 16, Nagaoka teaches the limitations of claim 15, but does not teach further details.
Lindmark teaches (Figs. 45-47) the reflecting member includes a dielectric substrate (1270F) and a plurality of reflective elements disposed on at least one surface of the dielectric substrate (see Figs. 45-47), and the reflective elements are not disposed on an end part region where adjacent the frequency selective reflectors face to each other (see Fig. 47).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the substrate of Lindmark in the antenna apparatus of Nagaoka since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) The substrate can provide protection for the reflector.
Regarding claim 37, Nagaoka teaches the limitations of claim 15, but does not teach further details.
Lindmark teaches (Fig. 25) wherein each of the frequency selective reflectors includes a protective member (1119).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the protective member of Lindmark in the antenna apparatus of Nagaoka since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) The protective member can provide protection for the reflector.
Regarding claim 39, Nagaoka teaches the limitations of claim 6, but does not teach further details.
Lindmark teaches (Fig. 25) wherein the substrate includes a resin substrate ([0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the protective member of Lindmark in the antenna apparatus of Nagaoka since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) The resin material is well known in the antenna art as a substrate.
Regarding claim 40, Nagaoka teaches the limitations of claim 6, but does not teach further details.
Lindmark teaches (Fig. 25) adjusting the size of the frequency selective reflectors ([0189]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the reflectors of Nagaoka with the teaching of Lindmark to make the size of each of the frequency selective reflectors 150 mm square or more since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Adjusting the size of the reflectors can be within the purview of a skilled artisan for the desired application and costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gillard et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20150263425) teaches a reflector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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 571-270-7893. 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.
/DANIEL MUNOZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights