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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 09/04/2026 drawn to the rejection of claims 4 and 10-18 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 drawn to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 7 of 8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 09/04/2026, Applicant supplies two primary arguments to distinguish the cited prior art (Chen 2019/0013128) over the presently claimed invention:
“That is, the present claim amendment clarifies that the magnetic iron oxide contained in the electromagnetic wave absorbing layer of the electromagnetic wave absorber of the present invention as being "particulate".
On the other hand, the magnetic dielectric material described in Chen '128 is "hexaferrite fiber". Hexaferrite fiber is "fibrous" (see Fig. 1 to Fig. 6, and paragraphs [0011]-[0016] describing "microfibers"), even described as having a preferred aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 10 or greater than or equal to 50 (paragraph [0019]). Such descriptions are different from the "particulate" magnetic iron oxide (including hexagonal ferrite in claim 5) contained in the electromagnetic wave absorber of the present invention. Therefore, the present invention is patentably distinct from Chen '128.”
And
“Chen '128 does not describe a transmission-type electromagnetic wave absorber.”
Regarding argument 1) “the present claim amendment clarifies that the magnetic iron oxide contained in the electromagnetic wave absorbing layer of the electromagnetic wave absorber of the present invention as being "particulate" …” the magnetic dielectric material described in Chen '128 is "hexaferrite fiber".
Examiner acknowledges that Chen recites and discloses a hexaferrite fiber. However, the limitation which Applicant is relying upon to distinguish the present invention from Chen is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. Applicant recites the iron oxide being “particulate”, however the specification is silent as to the nature of “particulate” in its shape or configuration and Applicant provides no further argumentation as to what differentiates particulate from fibrous. Neither does a review of accepted definitions of “particulate” seem to differentiate between Chen’s fibers and Applicant’s particles.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen’s fibers are composed of plural crystalline grains seemingly aggregated into fibers having a length and diameter. Barring a definition of “particulate” in Applicant’s disclosure, or an Applicant supplied reference that teaches an accepted term of art definition for “particulate”, that differentiates Chen’s fiber from Applicant’s “particulate”, the Examiner is applying a reasonable interpretation of particulate to mean “comprising a plurality of minute separate fragments”.
As such the rejection is maintained.
In the event that a new grounds of rejection is required on this matter owing to a hypothetical establishment of distinction between Chen and the instant application, Examiner draws attention to additionally cited reference Ohkoshi (US 2012/0100064) (para 0052 amongst others disclosing magnetic particles of iron oxide).
Regarding argument 2) “Chen does not describe a transmission-type electromagnetic wave absorber.”
Applicant’s specification defines “transmission-type electromagnetic absorber”:
Paragraph 0007 “Among the electromagnetic-wave absorbers that absorb electromagnetic waves of a high frequency in or above the millimeter-wave band, an electromagnetic-wave absorber that includes an electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer containing an electromagnetic-wave absorbing material that magnetically resonates with incident electromagnetic waves to absorb the electromagnetic waves may be a transmission-type and function as, e.g., an electromagnetic-wave filter that exclusively absorbs electromagnetic waves of a predetermined frequency. The transmission-type electromagnetic-wave absorber is advantageous in that flexibility and elasticity can be easily imparted to the entire absorber because the absorber does not include an electromagnetic-wave shielding layer that reflects electromagnetic waves unlike a reflection-type electromagnetic-wave absorber, i.e., a λ/4 type electromagnetic-wave absorber, which absorbs electromagnetic waves by incident waves and reflected waves cancelling each other in a dielectric layer.”
Paragraph 0025 “unlike a reflection-type electromagnetic-wave absorbing sheet, it is unnecessary to provide a reflective layer on a surface of the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer 1 opposite to a surface from which electromagnetic waves are incident, and the sheet can be used as a transmission-type electromagnetic-wave absorbing sheet that absorbs electromagnetic waves passing through the electromagnetic-wave absorbing layer”
Based on Applicant’s own definitions, a transmission type electromagnetic absorber must absorb incident electromagnetic waves without the use of a reflective layer that facilitates interference cancellation of the waves.
Examiner acknowledges that Chen does disclose embodiments in which a conductive layer is deposited on the absorbing layer (fig 5 and 6 element 20, para 0059-0067). Chen does not disclose the conductive layer being used for reflection of the incident wave to facilitate interference cancellation. Chen discloses the conductive layer being a portion of a circuit of the antenna (para 0062). However, Chen discloses multiple embodiments in which a conductive layer is not present at all, for example at least Embodiments 1-17 and any further Embodiments derived therefrom such as Embodiments 19-28 (para 0069-0096) do not require the conductive layer. Therefore, based on Applicant’s definition, Chen discloses a “transmission type” electromagnetic wave absorber.
As such the rejection is maintained.
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 particulate 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 particulate 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 particulate 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 particulate 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 particulate 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 and 0.022 or less 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 particulate 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 particulate 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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 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.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights