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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “and active zone for generating or absorbing electromagnetic radiation,” which appears to require “an active zone.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite that the metal wiring (claim 1) or metal layer (claim 13) “is arranged in a horizontal layer of the dielectric layer,” while the remaining spatial limitations of the claims are expressed with respect to “a first direction.” The limitation is indefinite because the claims do not establish any relationship between “horizontal” and the recited “first direction.” The Specification defines “horizontal” and “vertical” only with respect to a first surface of a substrate or semiconductor body (e.g., see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), not with respect to the emission direction of the radar antenna. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “horizontal” as perpendicular to the first direction.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “at least one minimum of electric field intensity within the dielectric layer” and thereafter “a minimum of the electric field strength of electromagnetic radiation having the wavelength λ.” The limitations are indefinite because electric field intensity and electric field strength are distinct quantities, and it cannot be determined whether the same minimum is intended. For examination purposes, the Examiner treats the two recitations as referring to the same minimum.
Claim 9 recites “the metal mesh.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites a metal wiring rather than a metal mesh. A metal mesh is first recited in claim 3.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “the metal layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 10 depends from claim 1, which recites a metal wiring rather than a metal layer. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the metal layer” as the metal wiring of claim 1.
Claims 12 and 15 recite “wherein k < m” without reciting that k is an integer or that k is not negative. The limitation is indefinite because non-integer or negative values of k yield positions that are not minima of the electric field, contrary to the parent claims. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets k as an integer wherein 0 ≤ k < m.
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) 1-2 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10651530 B2 (hereinafter “Okumura”) in view of WO 2021/074303 A1 (hereinafter “Caruso”).
Claim 1: Okumura teaches an electronic system comprising: a radar antenna, configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength λ in a first direction (e.g., see millimeter wave radar device 15 transmitting millimeter waves forward in FIGS. 1-2, First Embodiment, wherein the millimeter wave is a radio wave having a wavelength of 1 to 10 mm and a frequency of 30 to 300 GHz), and an electric device, the electric device being arranged in an emission direction of the radar antenna (e.g., see emblem 20 received in window portion 12, the window portion being arranged at a position located on the leading side in the transmitting direction of the millimeter waves from the millimeter wave radar device, FIGS. 2, 5), the electric device comprising a dielectric layer (e.g., see transparent member 25 of PC plastic having a small dielectric loss tangent, divided into front transparent portion 26 and rear transparent portion 27, FIGS. 2, 4) and a metal wiring for contacting elements of the electric device (e.g., see wire-shaped heater 35 of Nichrome wire arranged on plastic sheet 34, having power-receiving connection terminals 36 arranged in the opposite ends of the heater 35 and electrically connected to power-feeding connection terminals 13, FIGS. 3, 5), wherein a thickness of the dielectric layer measured in the first direction is determined so that the emitted electromagnetic radiation forms at least one standing wave having at least one minimum of electric field intensity within the dielectric layer (e.g., see Expression 1, T = [(λe/2)/√(εp)]n, in Col. 6, wherein the thickness T is set to a multiple by an integer of a value obtained by dividing the half wavelength by a square root of the relative permittivity, T ≈ 7.2 mm, held uniform in the millimeter wave transmittance area Z1, First Embodiment; i.e., an integer number of half wavelengths in the material, whereby interior minima of the standing wave are inherently formed), the metal wiring is arranged in a horizontal layer of the dielectric layer (e.g., see main portion 33a of heating sheet 33 arranged between front transparent portion 26 and rear transparent portion 27 to be laminated with and integrated with both, FIGS. 2, 4).
Okumura does not explicitly teach a position, in the first direction, of the metal wiring is determined so that it corresponds to a minimum of the electric field strength of electromagnetic radiation having the wavelength λ.
However Caruso teaches the dependence of the interaction between a radar wave and a position within a dielectric layer upon the electric field of the standing wave therein (e.g., see FIG. 8 and paragraph [0119], wherein attenuation of 76-77 GHz radiation through a polycarbonate substrate follows an inclined sine curve, attenuation being cyclically at a minimum with substrate thickness that is an integer multiple of the half wavelength through the substrate and maximum attenuation being a quarter wavelength offset from the minimum; see paragraph [0118], εr = 2.8 and λi = 2.328 mm for polycarbonate at 77 GHz), and further teaches that a metal wiring in the form of a resistance wire circuit 12 may be embedded in or molded into the radio-transmissive substrate 2 (e.g., see paragraphs [0114]-[0116], FIG. 6).
Okumura further recognizes the position of the metal wiring within the dielectric layer as a result effective variable with respect to millimeter wave transmittance, disclosing a plurality of alternative positions of the heating sheet 33 within the stack (e.g., on the front surface of the transparent member 25 in the Third Embodiment; on the rear of the base member 22 in the Fourth Embodiment; between the decoration layer 32 and the base member 22 in the Fifth Embodiment; and between the decoration layer 32 and the transparent member 25 in the modifications) and expressly locating the heater 35 outside the transmittance area Z1 so that the heater “is thus unlikely to hinder the transmittance of millimeter waves” (e.g., see Second and Sixth Embodiments, see Col. 10, Lns. 4-13).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to determine the position, in the first direction, of the metal wiring of Okumura so that it corresponds to a minimum of the electric field strength, as taught by Caruso, in order to minimize interaction between the metal wiring and the emitted radar radiation and thereby reduce attenuation and reflection of the radar radiation through the electric device. The modification amounts to the optimization of a result effective variable expressly recognized by Okumura and would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 2: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 1, wherein the thickness d of the dielectric layer is determined so that d = λ*m/(n*2), wherein m denotes an integer with m>0, and n denotes a refractive index of the dielectric layer (e.g., see Expression 1 of Okumura, T = [(λe/2)/√(εp)]n, wherein √(εp) is the refractive index of the dielectric layer and the integer multiplier corresponds to m; further see Caruso paragraphs [0105] and [0119], wherein the substrate thickness providing minimum attenuation is determined by the equation mλi/2).
Claim 10: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, and the metal layer is arranged between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (e.g., see front transparent portion 26 and rear transparent portion 27 with the main portion 33a of heating sheet 33 arranged therebetween, FIGS. 2, 4 of Okumura; further see Caruso FIG. 4, decorative layer 6 between dielectric layers 8).
Claim 11: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the first and the second dielectric layers comprises a multilayer stack (e.g., see rear transparent portion 27, decoration layer 32, heat transfer restraining layer 37 and base member 22 collectively forming thickness T2 in FIG. 4 of Okumura; further see Caruso FIG. 5, multi-stack decorative coating 5 having alternating dielectric layers 8).
Claim 12: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 2, wherein the position v, in the first direction, of the metal wiring is determined as v = λ*(k+0.5)/(2*n), wherein k < m (e.g., wherein positioning the metal wiring at a minimum of the electric field strength within a dielectric layer having a thickness d = λ*m/(2*n) places the metal wiring at the odd quarter-wave positions given by that expression; further see Caruso paragraph [0119], wherein the positions of maximum attenuation are a quarter wavelength offset from the integer half-wave positions, i.e., 0.75, 1.25 and 1.75 times the wavelength through the substrate, such that the intervening minima are located at the recited positions).
Claim 13: Okumura teaches an emission device, comprising: a radar antenna, configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength λ in a first direction (e.g., see millimeter wave radar device 15 transmitting millimeter waves forward in FIGS. 1-2, First Embodiment, wherein the millimeter wave is a radio wave having a wavelength of 1 to 10 mm and a frequency of 30 to 300 GHz), a dielectric layer being arranged in an emission direction of the radar antenna (e.g., see transparent member 25 of PC plastic and base member 22 of emblem 20 received in window portion 12, the window portion being arranged at a position located on the leading side in the transmitting direction of the millimeter waves from the millimeter wave radar device, FIGS. 2, 4, 5), and a metal layer (e.g., see decoration layer 32 comprising a metal layer formed by vapor deposition of a metal material such as indium, FIG. 4), wherein a thickness d of the dielectric layer measured in the first direction is determined so that the emitted electromagnetic radiation forms at least one standing wave having at least one minimum of electric field intensity within the dielectric layer (e.g., see Expression 1, T = [(λe/2)/√(εp)]n, wherein the thickness T is set to a multiple by an integer of a value obtained by dividing the half wavelength by a square root of the relative permittivity, T ≈ 7.2 mm, held uniform in the millimeter wave transmittance area Z1, First Embodiment; i.e., an integer number of half wavelengths in the material, whereby interior minima of the standing wave are inherently formed), the metal layer is arranged in a horizontal layer of the dielectric layer (e.g., see decoration layer 32 arranged between the base member 22 and the rear transparent portion 27 of the transparent member 25, FIG. 4).
Okumura does not explicitly teach (i) the metal layer having a thickness of less than 500 nm, or (ii) a position, in the first direction, of the metal layer is determined so that it corresponds to a minimum of the electric field strength of electromagnetic radiation having the wavelength λ.
However Caruso teaches a metal layer having a thickness of less than 500 nm arranged in a horizontal layer of a dielectric layer that is arranged in an emission direction of a radar antenna (e.g., see decorative layer 6 consisting of a metal or of an alloy including a metal, wherein the decorative layer is up to 100 nm thick, or up to 50 nm thick, or from 20 nm to 40 nm thick, or about 30 nm thick, paragraph [0018]; see Table 1, wherein the deposited Layer 1 is 30 nm of aluminium/germanium alloy or 20 nm of indium; see FIG. 4, wherein the decorative layer 6 is arranged between two dielectric layers 8 carried on radio-transmissive substrate 2; see FIG. 7 and paragraph [0103], radar system including radio wave transmitter 10 and radome 1), and further teaches that the decorative layer should be provided as a thin film especially in order to minimize radio wave attenuation and reflection (e.g., see paragraph [0018]; further see paragraphs [0043] and [0100], wherein the decorative layer has a sheet resistivity greater than 10⁶ ohms per square in order to achieve sufficient radio-transparency).
Caruso further teaches the dependence of the interaction between a radar wave and a position within a dielectric layer upon the electric field of the standing wave therein (e.g., see FIG. 8 and paragraph [0119], wherein attenuation of 76-77 GHz radiation through a polycarbonate substrate follows an inclined sine curve, attenuation being cyclically at a minimum with substrate thickness that is an integer multiple of the half wavelength through the substrate and maximum attenuation being a quarter wavelength offset from the minimum; see paragraph [0118], εr = 2.8 and λi = 2.328 mm for polycarbonate at 77 GHz).
Okumura further recognizes the position of a metal layer within the dielectric layer as a result effective variable with respect to millimeter wave transmittance, disclosing the decoration layer 32 and the heating sheet 33 at differing relative positions within the stack (e.g., the heating sheet 33 on the front surface of the transparent member 25 in the Third Embodiment; on the rear of the base member 22 in the Fourth Embodiment; between the decoration layer 32 and the base member 22 in the Fifth Embodiment; and between the decoration layer 32 and the transparent member 25 in the modifications) and expressly locating the heater 35 outside the transmittance area Z1 so that the heater “is thus unlikely to hinder the transmittance of millimeter waves” (e.g., see Second and Sixth Embodiments).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the metal layer of Okumura with a thickness of less than 500 nm as taught by Caruso in order to minimize attenuation and reflection of the emitted radar radiation by the metal layer while retaining the metallic visual appearance of the decoration layer, and to determine the position, in the first direction, of the metal layer of Okumura so that it corresponds to a minimum of the electric field strength as taught by Caruso in order to minimize interaction between the metal layer and the emitted radar radiation and thereby reduce attenuation and reflection of the radar radiation through the emission device. The modification amounts to the optimization of a result effective variable expressly recognized by Okumura and would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 14: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the emission device according to claim 13, wherein the thickness d of the dielectric layer is determined so that d = λ*m/(n*2), wherein m denotes an integer larger than 0 and n denotes a refractive index of the dielectric layer (e.g., see Expression 1 of Okumura and Caruso paragraphs [0105], [0119], as set forth for claim 2 above).
Claim 15: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the emission device according to claim 14, wherein the position v, in the first direction, of the metal layer is determined as v = λ*(k+0.5)/(2*n), wherein k < m (e.g., as set forth for claim 12 above).
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura in view of Caruso, and further in view of US 11005170 B2 (hereinafter “Yamada”).
Claim 3: the modified invention of Okumura does not explicitly teach the electronic system according to claim 1, wherein the metal wiring comprises a metal mesh.
However Yamada teaches a metal wiring comprising a metal mesh (e.g., see first constituent material 11 of copper formed in a lattice shape by copper metal wires, FIG. 4; obtained by etching a copper foil into a lattice shape) arranged in a horizontal layer of a dielectric layer arranged in an emission direction of a radar antenna (e.g., see three-layer stacked structural body 10 forming first site A in front of antenna 30 emitting at 76.5 GHz, wherein the first constituent material 11 is sandwiched between second constituent materials 12 of polyimide, FIGS. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the metal wiring of the modified invention of Okumura as a metal mesh as taught by Yamada in order to obtain an effective transmissivity close to one in the frequency band of the millimeter waves while screening electromagnetic waves in the EMC region below 1 GHz, thereby reducing unnecessary radiation of electromagnetic waves and preventing interference and cross talk. Okumura further contemplates area-type conductors for the heater (e.g., see the modification wherein the wire-shaped heater 35 is configured by a transparent conductive film of ITO).
Claim 6: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 3, wherein a period of the metal mesh is smaller than λ/n (e.g., see Yamada, array interval a of 1.2 mm in the longitudinal and lateral directions, wherein for polyimide having a relative permittivity of 3.25 the refractive index n = √3.25 = 1.803 and, at 76.5 GHz where λ = 3.92 mm, λ/n = 2.17 mm, such that 1.2 mm < 2.17 mm).
Claim 7: the modified invention of Okumura is such that it teaches the electronic system according to claim 3, wherein a period of the metal mesh is larger than 0.1*λ/n (e.g., see Yamada, array interval a of 1.2 mm, wherein 0.1*λ/n = 0.217 mm, such that 1.2 mm > 0.217 mm).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura in view of Caruso and Yamada, and further in view of US 10310681 B2 (hereinafter “Takeyasu”).
Claim 4: the modified invention of Okumura does not explicitly teach the electronic system according to claim 3, wherein the metal mesh has a thickness of 0.2 µm to 10 µm.
However Takeyasu teaches a metal wiring layer having a mesh pattern and having a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.1 µm but less than 0.5 µm, preferably 0.15 µm to 0.35 µm, and less than 2 µm (e.g., see the description of the metal wiring layer of the translucent conductive film), which overlaps the claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the metal mesh of the modified invention of Okumura with a thickness within the claimed range as taught by Takeyasu in order to prevent the mesh pattern from being visually recognizable and to improve productivity while avoiding wire break in the metal wiring. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura in view of Caruso and Yamada, and further in view of US 11104813 B2 (hereinafter “Ooi”).
Claim 5: the modified invention of Okumura does not explicitly teach the electronic system according to claim 3, wherein a width of the individual metal wires forming the metal mesh is 8 to 25 µm.
However Ooi teaches a metal mesh transparent conductive film wherein the width of the wiring is 50 µm or smaller so that the film will be recognizable as a transparent body, and 10 µm or smaller so as to obtain sufficient light transmittance and mesh density, the film being usable to form wiring on a common electrode of an organic EL display or a light extraction electrode for organic EL illumination, which encompasses the claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the individual metal wires of the metal mesh of the modified invention of Okumura with a width within the claimed range as taught by Ooi in order to obtain sufficient light transmittance and mesh density while rendering the mesh recognizable as a transparent body. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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, and, as to claim 9, if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, an electric device comprising an optoelectronic semiconductor device having a first semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type, a second semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type and an active zone therebetween, integrated within a dielectric layer whose thickness is determined so that the emitted radar radiation forms a standing wave having a minimum of electric field intensity therein, wherein a metal mesh contacting the first or second semiconductor layer is positioned at that minimum. The prior art of record discloses conductive structures within such a dielectric layer that serve as heating elements or as permittivity-controlling elements, but not as contacts of an optoelectronic semiconductor device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/AMAL PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights