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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al [US 9208362 B1] in view of Suorsa et al [US 20140266850 A1].
As for claim 1, Fink discloses a composition of matter for electromagnetic shielding, comprising:
a polymer-containing matrix; and a metamaterial incorporated into or embedded within the polymer-containing matrix (column 8, lines 4-65) and a conveyance layer, wherein the conveyance layer comprises a conductive material configured to guide a flow of electromagnetic energy (column 4, lines 29-60; wherein the conductive layer acts as the claimed conveyance layer).
In an analogous art, Suorsa discloses that it was known for metamaterials to be incorporated or embedded within a polymer containing matrix, the metamaterial having a particular specific permittivity or permeability to absorb or reflect a particular frequency of electromagnetic energy (paragraphs 0033-0036 and 0038-0043). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that Fink includes metamaterials having known properties. The skilled artisan would have recognized that Fink’s metamaterial would have a particular specific permittivity or permeability to absorb or reflect a particular frequency of electromagnetic energy.
As for claims 2-3, Suorsa discloses that the metamaterial comprises carbon nanoparticles (paragraph 0033).
As for claim 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1-3 above (see Suorsa paragraphs 0020, 0029, and 0050).
As for claim 5, Suorsa discloses that the polymer-containing matrix comprises a thermoplastic material (paragraph 0073).
Claim 6 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 7, Suorsa discloses wherein the metamaterial is embedded within the polymer-containing matrix in at least one of a uniform distribution, a layered structure, a grid-like structure, or a random structure (paragraph 0010).
As for claim 8¸ the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also Suorsa paragraphs 0020, 0029, and 0050.
Claims 10 and 12 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 13, Fink discloses that the metamaterial is configured to increase performance of at least one of: an antenna, a telemetry module, a communication device, a computing device, and a sensing equipment (column 8, lines 45-65).
Claim 17 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 12-13 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 14-16, and 18-22 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses the use of metamaterials as it were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights