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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that no new matter is added, however does not make reference to any particular portions of the disclosure to support the claim amendments, and none is apparent upon review. In particular, the added language to claims 1 and 11 defining the incremental azimuth and elevation angles are not found to be supported by the original disclosure.
The Remarks group independent claim 7 along with independent claims 1 and 11, however no amendments have been made to claim 7. The rejections of claims 7-10 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) which were affirmed in the appeal decision of 12/19/2025 represent distinct issues from those of claims 1 and 11. These rejections are not addressed by any particular argument or amendment. A Board decision in an application is the "law of the case". A submission containing arguments without either amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove any rejection affirmed in such decision. See MPEP 706.07(h) (XI)(A). These rejections are maintained.
While language concerning azimuth and elevation angle specifications of “a radar under test” was removed from claim 1, this language remains in claim 11. It appears this is unintentional and removal similar to claim 1 was intended, as claim 11 now also repeats limitations concerning array spacing (note lines 8-9 vs. 13-14) . Nonetheless, as a corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was affirmed in the appeal decision of 12/19/2025, the rejection is maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claims use
PNG
media_image1.png
23
34
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
26
29
media_image2.png
Greyscale
to indicate the “incremental azimuth angle” and “incremental elevation angle”, respectively. These indications are not found in the specification. Amendment to the specification and/or claims for consistency 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.
Claims 4-19 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.
Claims 4 and 6 recite the limitation “the azimuth resolution specification". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the elevation resolution specification". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 concludes with “wherein the array comprises a plurality of MRTS’s staggered in displacement from a device under test”. Claim 16 recites the same. The limitation imposed by this language is indefinite because it defines the invention based on physical spacing of MRTS’s of the system in comparison to an undefined physical location of a device which is not part of the system. Claims 9-10 and 18-19 take this further, defining MRTS displacement from one another dependent on a wavelength of the device under test. As such, a same given system (re-illumination element) would infringe the claims when placed relative to one device under test, but not infringe when placed relative to another, or while in the absence of a device under test. The scope of the claimed invention is therefore indefinite.
Concerning both claims 8 and 17 it is also not clear whether the MRTS’s within the rows(s) are staggered with respect to each other in an azimuthal direction, or instead the rows themselves are staggered with respect to one another in an azimuthal direction, and likewise for the columns in elevation. The drawings (4A being most relevant) are not found to clarify the intent, the figure illustrating only four MRTS’s and the accompanying description making no reference to “rows” or “columns”. For example, does Figure 4A illustrate one row of staggered MRTS’s or two rows of MRTS’s staggered from one another (or neither of these)? It appears that a three dimensional view(s) may be necessary to clarify what Applicant regards as the “staggered” arrangement(s) of the claims, particularly concerning claims 8-10 and 17-19.
Claim 11 requires “an incremental subtended azimuth angle” and “an incremental subtended elevation angle” are “finer than an azimuth resolution specification” and an “elevation resolution specification” of a radar device under test. As such, the claimed scope of the angles for the invention depends on an undefined, variable “specification”, i.e. that which is specific to any “radar device under test”. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore indefinite. Dependent claims 12-19 are likewise indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 are amended to require the incremental azimuth and elevation angles be “finer than corresponding angular-resolution design parameters of the re-illumination element”. However, the original description is not found to support this limitation. Rather, as originally claimed, the specification identifies the angles as finer than specifications of the radar device under test, not the re-illumination element. See paragraphs:
[019]:
PNG
media_image3.png
116
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [019] clearly establishes that the resolution specifications are those of the radar device, not the re-illumination element.
[021]:
PNG
media_image4.png
249
683
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A possible error is noted in the wording that concludes paragraph [0021], i.e. it appears this should mirror the language of [019]. Regardless, the paragraph likewise does not support the amended claim language.
[025]:
PNG
media_image5.png
205
643
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Possible errors are again noted in [025], e.g. “vertical spacing…is slightly finer than the incremental subtended and elevation… angles are slightly finer than the elevation resolution”. Regardless, the paragraph likewise does not support the amended claim language.
No mention of resolution design parameters of the re-illumination element is found in the specification. The amendment introduces new matter. Claims 1 and 11 as well as the claims dependent thereon (2, 4-6, 12-19) fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646