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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-221326, filed on December 27, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Fujita (US 20150123872 A1) in view of Kanechika (JP 2021099313 A), same inventor, published Jan. 07, 2021.
As to claim 1, Fujita discloses a shielding member for use in a radar apparatus comprising: a flat first portion made of foamed resin (Fig. 1 item 32);
a second portion made of non-foamed resin, disposed to surround the first portion so as to contact a side surface of the first portion (Fig. item 42 touches at least six sides of item 32 including a base item 42 between two parallel sides of item 42);
and a third portion made of non-foamed resin, disposed to contact each of one surface and the other surface of the first portion (Fit. 1 item 42 at least one of two parallel sides of item 32 on either side of item 50 touch at least one side of item 32 itself having opposite sides of 32.)
Fujita does not specifically explicitly mention any substance composition making up a foamed resin.
In same field of endeavor, Kanechika discloses a foamed resin 18 throughout (same inventor and same Fig. 1).
In view of the teachings of Kanechicka, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to use foamed resin because foamed resin is known for its superior dielectric properties thereby the motivation would be to minimize radar loss.
Note: Applicant’s claimed invention appears to be directed to Fig. 3 items 18 a – c which has many differences compared to Kanechika’s Fig. 1, thus it should be easy to amend to overcome Kanechicka. For example, item 18b is thicker than item 18c. Also, the view of Fig. 3 appears to be in the same horizontal plane whereas Fujita’s view of Fig. 1 appears to be in a vertical plane.
As to claim 3, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the shielding member according to claim 1, wherein the second portion and the third portion are integrally formed (Fujita Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, Fuita in view of Kanechicka teaches the shielding member according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the third portion is less than the thickness of the first portion (Fig. 1 item 32 has the widest dimension.)
As to claim 5, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the shielding member according to claim 1, wherein the second portion and the third portion are made of the same material (Fujita Fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the shielding member according to claim 1, wherein the first portion is made of the foamed resin in which air bubbles are mixed into the same material as the constituent material of the second portion and the third portion (as modified in claim 1 by Kanechicka – same inventor).
As to claim 7, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the radar apparatus comprising: a shielding member according to claim 1; and a radar wave transmitter arranged with a gap between the shielding member and the radar wave transmitter (Fujita Fig. 1 item 50 and gap between item 50 and item 32.).
As to claim 8, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the shielding member has the first portion disposed in a range where an incident angle of a radar wave is relatively small, and the second portion disposed in a range where an incident angle is relatively large (Fujita Fig. 1 shows item 32 being in the line-of-sight.).
As to claim 9, Fujita in view of Kanechicka teaches the radar apparatus according to claim 8, wherein a boundary between the first portion and the second portion is determined based on a range of an incident angle in which transmission loss in the foamed resin is smaller than transmission loss in the non-foamed resin (Paras. 39 – 40 and 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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 W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights