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.
Claims 4 and 10-18 are 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.
Claims 4 and 13 defines the real part of the complex permittivity of the absorber as 3.25 or more. As no upper limit is imposed on said value it is impossible to determine the scope of the claim limitation as “or more” would encompass every value to infinity.
Claim 10 defines the imaginary part of the complex permittivity of the absorber as 0.016 or more. As no upper limit is imposed on said value it is impossible to determine the scope of the claim limitation as “or more” would encompass every value to infinity.
Additional claims 11, 12, 14-18 are rejected at least for their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
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)(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) 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2019/0013128).
Claim 1: Chen discloses A transmission-type electromagnetic-wave absorber (para 0017, 0064), comprising: an electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer comprising a magnetic iron oxide that magnetically resonates at a frequency in or above a millimeter-wave band (para 0017-0026, 0036) and a binder comprising an organic material (para 0041-0043), wherein a volume content of the magnetic iron oxide contained in the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer is 3.5% or more (para 0022), and a value of a real part of a complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 5.5 or less at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 2: Chen discloses the real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 5.43 or less at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 3: Chen discloses the real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 4.2 or less at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 4: Chen discloses the real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 3.25 or more at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 5: Chen discloses the magnetic iron oxide comprises hexagonal ferrite (para 0017-0026, 0036)
Claim 7: Chen discloses the binder comprises any of thermosetting rubber, thermoplastic elastomer, or thermoplastic resin (para 0041-0043)
Claim 8: Chen discloses the volume content of the magnetic iron oxide contained in the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer is 23% or less (para 0022)
Claim 9: Chen discloses the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer is in the form of a sheet (fig 3-5, para 0026)
Claim 10: Chen discloses A transmission-type electromagnetic-wave absorber (para 0017, 0064), comprising: an electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer comprising a magnetic iron oxide that magnetically resonates at a frequency in or above a millimeter-wave band (para 0017-0026, 0036) and a binder comprising an organic material (para 0041-0043), wherein a value of an imaginary part of a complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 0.016 or more at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085), and a value of a real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 5.5 or less at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 12: Chen discloses the real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 4.2 or less at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 13: Chen discloses the real part of the complex relative permittivity of the electromagnetic-wave absorber is 3.25 or more at 1 GHz (para 0037-0040, 0085)
Claim 14: Chen discloses the magnetic iron oxide comprises hexagonal ferrite (para 0017-0026, 0036)
Claim 16: Chen discloses the binder comprises any of thermosetting rubber, thermoplastic elastomer, or thermoplastic resin (para 0041-0043)
Claim 17: Chen discloses a volume content of the magnetic iron oxide contained in the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer is 23% or less (para 0022)
Claim 18: Chen discloses the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer is in the form of a sheet (fig 3-5, para 0026)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0013128) as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Ohkoshi (US 2012/0100064).
Claims 6 and 15: Chen discloses the hexagonal ferrite is strontium ferrite or barium ferrite (para 0018, 0072, 0073). Chen does not specifically disclose part of a Fe site of the hexagonal ferrite is substituted with a trivalent metal atom.
Ohkoshi discloses production of a magnetic thin film having insulating properties, the film comprising iron-oxide in an organic binder (para 0024, 0047, 0182, 0184) wherein the hexagonal ferrite is strontium ferrite or barium ferrite and a part of a Fe site of the hexagonal ferrite is substituted with a trivalent metal atom (para 0061)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Ohkoshi, in order to improve stability of the crystalline structure (Ohkoshi para 0061)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 830am-5pm.
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 Desai can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights