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 based on an application filed in JP on 09/26/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first interlayer film and the third interlayer film are connected together within the opening” but there is no drawings showing this limitation.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the opening contains at least one of the first interlayer film or the third interlayer film” but there is no drawings showing this limitation.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 7, 9, 10 and 12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein a thickness of the interlayer is smaller than a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave incident on the reflective surface" in lines 2-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what frequency or wavelength of the electromagnetic wave Applicant is talking about to decide the thickness of the interlayer. Thickness of the interlayer cannot be smaller than the wavelength of all the electromagnetic wave incident on the reflective surface because electromagnetic wave frequency range can be 1Hz to more than 1025Hz so the wavelength can be from 2.99x108m to less than 0.01nm. It is not clear how this electromagnetic wave relates to the electromagnetic waves of 1 GHz or more and 300 GHz or less recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " wherein an opening ratio of the one or more through-holes or the mesh structure is 50.0% or more and 80% or less" in lines 2-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what opening ratio is. It is not clear if it is the length and width ratio of one or more through-holes or it is the ratio of the total area of the one or more through-holes or the mesh structure and the area of the second interlayer film. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein the opening contains at least one of the first interlayer film or the third interlayer film" in lines 2-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how an opening of the second interlayer film could contain the whole first or third interlayer films while these films are stacked as recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on para [0033], Examiner interprets the claim as the opening contains a portion of the first or the third interlayer films.
Claim 10 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 9 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein a filling percentage of the opening is 90.0% or more of a total area or a total volume of the opening " in lines 2-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what this filling percentage is and what material is filling the opening. For the purpose of examination, based on para [0033], Examiner interprets the claim as a percentage of the portion of the first or the third interlayer film contained in the opening is 90.0% or more of a total area or a total volume of the opening.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein two or more of said reflective panels are connected together by one or more of said frames" in lines 5-7 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the electromagnetic wave reflecting fence comprises two or more of said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatuses of claim 11 and each said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatus in claim 11 comprises a frame, therefore, there should be two or more said frames but the claim only recites one or more. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto et al, US-20240088570-A1 (hereinafter Nomoto).
Regarding claim 1, Nomoto discloses the following:
a reflective panel, comprising:
a first substrate (15, fig. 9);
a second substrate (13A); and
an interlayer in which, a first interlayer film (14B), a second interlayer film (16B, 13B), and a third interlayer film (14A) are stacked in this order, the interlayer being provided between the first substrate and the second substrate,
wherein an interface between the first interlayer film and the second interlayer film, or an interface between the second interlayer film and the third interlayer film is a reflective surface (para [0091]: reflecting materials 12A and 12B, are laminated in the up-down direction with the substrate layers 13A and 13B), and
wherein d1 and d2 together satisfy 0.5<d1/d2<1.5 (para [0117]: thickness of layer 14A, 14B are 150 μm which means d1/d2=1), where d1 denotes an average thickness of the first interlayer film and d2 denotes an average thickness of the third interlayer film.
Although Nomoto does not explicitly disclose the reflective surface is configured to reflect electromagnetic waves of 1 GHz or more and 300 GHz or less, Nomoto discloses the reflective surface is configured to reflect electromagnetic waves of 3 GHz to 300 GHz (para [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the frequency range the reflective surface configured to taught in Nomoto to be 1 GHz or more as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to design a reflective panel being able to reflect desired electromagnetic waves depending on the requirements of the application.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, although Nomoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the interlayer is smaller than a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave incident on the reflective surface, Nomoto discloses that the thickness can be adjusted to achieve desired flexibility and visible light transmission properties (para [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the interlayer taught in Nomoto to be smaller than a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve desired flexibility and visible light transmission properties (para [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, Nomoto discloses wherein the first interlayer film and the third interlayer film are resin layers (para [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Nomoto discloses wherein a relative permittivity of the resin layers is 2.0 or more and 3.0 or less (para [0082]), and a dielectric loss tangent of the resin layers is 0.0001 or more and less than 0.1000 (para [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Nomoto discloses wherein the second interlayer film (16B, fig. 9) is a film containing metal (12, para [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Nomoto discloses wherein the second interlayer film (16B/12B, fig. 9) has an opening that is one or more through-holes or a mesh structure (fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Nomoto discloses wherein an opening ratio of the one or more through-holes or the mesh structure is 50.0% or more and 80% or less (Fig. 7B).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Miyazaki et al, US-20220352226-A1 (hereinafter Miyazaki).
Regarding claim 8, Nomoto does not disclose wherein the first interlayer film and the third interlayer film are connected together within the opening.
Miyazaki suggests wherein the first interlayer film (1042, fig. 28) and the third interlayer film 1035) are connected together within the opening (1041a, 1041b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the first and third interlayer films of the reflective panel taught in Nomoto within the opening as suggested in Miyazaki as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the surfaces of the opening and providing support to the first and third interlayer films in order to prevent them from disforming into the opening overtime and affecting the performance of the reflective panel.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Nomoto does not disclose wherein the opening contains at least one of the first interlayer film or the third interlayer film.
Miyazaki suggests wherein the opening (1041a, 1041b, fig. 28) contains at least one of the first interlayer film (1042) or the third interlayer film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first interlayer film as suggested in Miyazaki in the opening of the reflective panel taught in Nomoto as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the surfaces of the opening and providing support to the first and third interlayer films in order to prevent them from disforming into the opening overtime and affecting the performance of the reflective panel.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Nomoto does not disclose wherein a filling percentage of the opening is 90.0% or more of a total area or a total volume of the opening.
Miyazaki suggested wherein a filling percentage of the opening is 90.0% or more of a total area or a total volume of the opening (1041a, 1041b, fig. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filling percentage of the opening taught in Nomoto to be 90.0% or more of a total area or a total volume of the opening as suggested in Miyazaki as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the surfaces of the opening and providing support to the first and third interlayer films in order to prevent them from disforming into the opening overtime and affecting the performance of the reflective panel.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Takeshi et al, JP-4892207-B2 (hereinafter Takeshi).
Regarding claim 11, Nomoto does not disclose an electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatus, comprising: the reflective panel of claim 1; and a frame holding the reflective panel.
Takeshi suggests an electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatus, comprising: the reflective panel (1, fig. 1B); and a frame (10a, 10b) holding the reflective panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frame as suggested in Takeshi to the electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatus taught in Nomoto as claimed for the purpose of connecting plurality of reflective panels (Takeshi, page 4, Advantageous Effects section, point B) in order to increase the area of reflecting surface.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Nomoto does not disclose an electromagnetic wave reflecting fence, comprising: two or more of said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatuses of two or more of said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatuses of claim 11 wherein two or more of said reflective panels are connected together by one or more of said frames.
Takeshi suggests an electromagnetic wave reflecting fence, comprising: two or more of said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatuses of two or more of said electromagnetic wave reflecting apparatuses herein two or more of said reflective panels (1, fig. 1B) are connected together by one or more of said frames (10aa, 10b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect two or more of said reflective panels taught in Nomoto together as suggested in Takeshi as claimed for the purpose of increasing the area of reflecting surface depending the requirements of the application.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomoto, US-20240088570-A1 in view of Yatsuzuka et al, WO-2014027672-A1 (hereinafter Yatsuzuka).
Regarding claim 13, Nomoto discloses the following:
a method of making a reflective panel, the method comprising:
providing an interlayer (14B, 16B, 13B, 14A, fig. 9) between a first substrate (15) and a second substrate (13A), the interlayer being an interlayer in which a first interlayer film (14B), a second interlayer film (16B, 13B), and a third interlayer film (14A) are stacked in this order; and
a ratio d1/d2 of an average thickness d1 of the first interlayer film to an average thickness d2 of the third interlayer film satisfies 0.5<d1/d2<1.5 (para [0117]: thickness of layer 14A, 14B are 150 μm which means d1/d2=1).
Nomoto does not disclose the method of making the reflective panel comprising vacuum pressing the first substrate, the interlayer, and the second substrate at a temperature higher than 800C and 1300C or less.
Yatsuzuka suggests the method of making the reflective panel comprising vacuum pressing layers.
Although Yatsuzuka does not explicitly discloses the temperature higher than 800C and 1300C or less, Yatsuzuka suggests at a temperature 120°C or higher and 180°C or lower (page 12, para 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the vacuum pressing method as suggested in Yatsuzuka as claimed to the method of making a reflective panel taught in Nomoto at temperature higher than 800C and 1300C or less as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to form a reflective panel with uniform and thin layers and increase the durability of the construction.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of … – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Niiyama, US-20180321554-A1, fig. 2 could read on claim 1
Iguchi et al, US-20210276307-A1, fig. 7 could read on claim 1
Hirokazu et al, JP-2021061365-A, fig. 1 could read on claim 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights