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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutsui et al. (US 2024/0336788 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsui teaches a resin composition (Item 12) having electromagnetic wave permeability/transparency (Abstract; Paragraph 0019) comprising a base resin and filler particles added to the base resin (Paragraph 0025-0030). Tsutsui teaches the filler particles are aluminum flake, which will have a conductivity. (Paragraph 0031). Tsutsui teaches the filler particles are unevenly distributed in the resin composition. (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsutsui teaches the filler particles are aluminum flake, which are metal particles having conductivity. (Paragraph 0026-0030).
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 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui
Regarding Claim 2, Tsutsui teaches resin composition has electromagnetic permeability and attenuation at 76.5 GHz, which is millimeter wave (Paragraph 0104). Tsutsui teaches the resin composition has a thickness of 6 microns or less. (Paragraph 0034). This overlaps the claimed range. Tsutsui teaches the resin composition has two-way millimeter wave transmission attenuation (Fig. 2). Tsutsui teaches the two-way millimeter wave transmission attenuation of the resin can be 3 dB or less or 2 dB or less. (Paragraph 0104). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3-4, Tsutsui teaches the resin composition have a thickness of less than 6 microns and flakes have a thickness of 0.1 to 07 microns, which allows for multiple flakes next to and adjacent to each other (Paragraph 0034-0036). Tsutsui teaches the flakes are arranged on top and adjacent to each other. (Fig. 1) Tsutsui teaches the resin composition should be arranged so that each flake should not be contacting another flake. (Paragraph 0028, 0031). Thus, the resin composition of Tsutsui would have a distribution of an inter-particle distance, which is a distance between adjacent ones of the filler particles, has a peak, regions in the resin composition in which adjacent ones of the filler particles are spaced apart by an inter-particle distance greater than the inter-particle distance at the peak are defined as separation regions, and the separation regions are dispersed throughout the entire resin composition in both a thickness direction of the resin composition and a planar direction along an imaginary plane orthogonal to the thickness direction and regions in the resin composition in which adjacent ones of the filler particles are spaced apart by an inter-particle distance less than or equal to the inter-particle distance at the peak are defined as proximity regions, and the proximity regions are dispersed throughout the entire resin composition in both the thickness direction and the planar direction along the imaginary plane, orthogonal to the thickness direction. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0034-0036)
Regarding Claim 6, Tsutsui teaches the filler particles are aluminum flake (Paragraph 0025). Tsutsui teaches the particle size/average length of the aluminum flake is 9 microns or less. (Paragraph 0027). Tsutsui teaches the content of the aluminum is 45% or less. (Paragraph 0030). Tsutsui teaches the are occupancy rate of the aluminum flakes is more than 75% to 100%. (Paragraph 0011). This ranges overlap the claimed ranges. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui in view Yamane et al. (US 2025/0303444 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsutsui teaches the composition is applied as a coating onto an automobile and should have high flip flop (FF) values, which means a better metallic appearance. (Paragraph 0105) Tsutsui does not specifically teach the L* value in LAB color space is 40 or greater.
Yamane teaches a coating for a car, where a high FF value is desired and an L* value can be 120 or more. (Paragraph 0042; Abstract). Yamane teaches this L*range allows a suitable high FF, which allows for a good metallic texture. (Paragraph 0039-0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the L* value of the composition of Tsutsui to the claimed range to ensure desired luster and metallic appearance.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights