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 § 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) 1-4, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP-2017- 163141) in view of Majima et al (US 2024/0150542).
Re claim 1, Kitagawa discloses an electromagnetic wave absorbing member comprising:
an electromagnetic wave absorbing layer (A);
a spacer layer (B) made of polyester [0038]; and
a reflective layer (C), wherein the electromagnetic wave absorbing layer, the spacer layer, and the reflective layer are laminated in this order [0022],
a relative permittivity of the spacer layer is 5 or greater (2-20) [0019], but does not disclose a melting point of the spacer layer is 150-240 degree C.
Re claim 2, wherein a thickness of the spacer layer is from 200 µm to 450 µm (50-2000µm) [0040].
Re claim 3, wherein a Young's modulus of the spacer layer is 50 MPa or greater (0.1 to 1000 MPa) [0039].
Re claim 4, wherein a flexural rigidity is 300 N-mm2 or less [0039].
Re Claim 8, wherein a flexural rigidity is 240 N-mm2 or less [0039].
Re claim 9, wherein a flexural rigidity is 180 N-mm2 or less [0039].
Majima et al teach the use of polyester resin with a melting point of 224 degree C [0075] so that it can be molded [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the polyester resin for the spacer layer of Kitagawa so that it can be easily molded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1) that Majima provides no specific motivation or reason to select the polyester resin having a melting point of 224°C for application to the dielectric layer B of Kitagawa.
With respect to (1), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10-11 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG V NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-1979. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/HUNG V NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights