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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 7 and 8 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 9-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12-20 have been amended.
The objection to claim 20 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claims 1-6, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re rejections under 35 USC 103 Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. The rejection is made final. Independent claims 1, 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006. Dependent claims are also rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 10/29/2025 have been considered. Claims 7 and 8 have been canceled. Claims 1-6, 9-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 4, 5, 12-20 have been amended.
Re the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for claims 4-5, and 12-19. The claims have been amended to address the Office's concerns. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Re the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for claims 12-19, the arguments have been considered and the rejection is withdrawn. The claims are interpreted as the cross-polarization leakage is suppressed to -100 dB or more.
Re the rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 1-6, 9-20 the arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant disagrees the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and cites Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner does not find those cases analogous.
As per MPEP guidance, the terms in the claim are interpreted in broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus the term/step of ‘tailoring’, in view of the fact the clams being directed to a method to design a radome (and compounded by the lack of any definition of the term ‘tailoring’) precludes any physical action/step, and ‘tailoring’ thus is interpreted as adapting/customizing/selecting parameters etc. In other words the step in the claim does not involve physical manufacture or structural modification, and is interpreted as computational design/optimization especially in view of minimization targets etc. Thus ‘tailoring’ is reciting an abstract idea (mental/mathematical). All limitations are part of abstract idea and there is no additional element in the claim, to integrate into a practical application.
The 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection since the added limitations are disclosed by the primary reference and thus the combination of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, and Chang fails discloses all of the limitations of claim independent claims.
The rejections remain and are made final.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-19 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and claim 20 directed to a radome, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 (representative of claim 20, which has substantially similar limitations) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 20) recite an abstract idea, expressed by limitations shown in bold in the following:
[A] defining a set number N of flight paths FPN, wherein each flight path FPN is between a first city and a second city,
[B] determining a Looking Angle Distribution (Lα-Dist) for each flight path FPN,
[C] calculating a Combination Looking Angle Distribution (Combo-Lα-Dist) for the set number N of flight paths FPN
[D] determining a Combination Incidence Angle Distribution (Combo-Iα-Dist) corresponding to the Combo-Lα-Dist, and
[E] tailoring at least one radome shell structural component of the radome to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist.
[F] wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Ia-Dist comprises tailoring at least two distinct zones of the radome shell structural component, and wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at ang!es within the Combo-Ia-Dist comprises tailoring a characteristic of at least two structurally distinct zones that make up the radome shell structural component, wherein the characteristic is selected from the group consisting of a) a shape of each distinct zone, b) a placement pattern of each distinct zone in the radome c) a size of each distinct zone d) a location of each distinct zone in the radome e) a structure of each distinct zone in the radome, and f) any combination thereof
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 20) recites determining paths between two locations [A]; a distribution of look angles for each path [B]; a calculated combined distribution of look angles for all paths [C] a corresponding distribution of incident angles [D] and then determine appropriate radome structure to minimize degradation of EMG radiation incident at the corresponding distribution of incident angles [E], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding determination of path, a distribution of angles along a path, and then evaluation and judgement, thus recites a mental process (Concepts Performed in the Human Mind, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) ). Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually. e.g. on paper, by a human. The execution on a generic computer does not alter the essence of being an abstract idea - claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (the Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III.C. ). One should also note that some of these mental processes, make use of mathematical concepts, such as mathematical calculations used in calculating distributions (in [C]), and in optimization/minimization (in [E]), see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. Based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, these limitations collectively describe a process aimed at “optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution” .
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claim 20) recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements. Thus there is nothing to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
There is nothing to impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, or effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative also of claim 20) does not contribute an inventive concept. There are no additional elements. Thus, there is nothing to be considered to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07).
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 20 are deemed ineligible.
To make the claim eligible, if abstract ideas continue to be recited, additional elements should be included, of such nature that would be able to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claim 2 further recites:
[A] wherein defining a set number N of flight paths FPN further comprises utilizing a clustering algorithm to group flight paths by a characteristic.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mental process of clustering, that is of grouping items together based on similar characteristics. Clustering algorithms often also involve mathematical calculations, thus mathematical concepts. Should it be found that no mathematical calculations are involved in performing the clustering, the fact remains that the clustering is a process that can be performed in the mind, or using pen and paper. The use of a general computer does not alter the essence of the fact that this is a mental process, thus an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 3 further recites:
[A] wherein calculating the Combo-Lα-Dist for the set number N of flight paths FPN further comprises weighting each flight path FPN based on 1) distance of a given flight path relative to the other flight paths, 2) composition of leisure vs. business travel, 3) number of passengers on each flight (i.e. based on plane size), 4) use frequency of a flight path (i.e. how many times per day the flight path is traveled), 5) the number of people who buy Wi-Fi on a plane using a particular flight path.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites mathematical calculations in calculating a combined weighted distribution based on proportionality terms, the weights values assigned to various factors associated with flight paths. This calculation is seen as a mathematical calculation, based on a set of enumerated criteria, thus a mathematical concept, an abstract idea. This calculation could also be performed in the mind, or in general by a human with the help of a pen and paper or generic computer, which indicates a mental process as well. For all these reasons the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 11 further recites:
wherein minimizing electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist comprises minimizing an electromagnetic degradation selected from the group consisting of transmission loss for any incident polarization, co-polarization loss, cross-polarization loss, polarization change, boresight error, sidelobe level increase, main beam shape distortion, reflected power, noise increase, antenna VSWR increase or combinations thereof.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites mathematical calculations related to the minimizing process, thus a mathematical concept, an abstract idea. Determining a minimum has also the elements of a mental process, of making observations, judgements and decisions in the comparison of elements to determine which one has a lower value. For the able reasons the claim clearly recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Claims 4-5, dependent on claim 1, and claims 12-19, dependent on claim 11, further recite:
[A4] wherein N is equal to at least 1 flight path.
[A5] wherein N is equal to not greater than 29,000 flight paths.
[A12] wherein the radome comprises a transmission loss of not greater than -0.1 dB.
[A13] wherein the radome comprises a co-polarization loss of at least -5.0 dB.
[A14] wherein the radome comprises a cross-polarization loss of not greater than -10 dB.
[A15] wherein the radome comprises a polarization change of at least -100 dB.
[A16] wherein the radome comprises a boresight error of not greater than 20 mrad.
[A17] wherein the radome comprises a sidelobe level increase of not greater than 10 dB.
[A18] wherein the radome comprises a main beam shape distortion of not greater than 5%.
[A19] wherein the radome comprises a reflected power of not greater than -0.1 dB.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements –number of flight paths; transmission loss – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“optimizing a radome shell structure to minimize degradation of signals in a certain incidence distribution”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment. These additional elements do not do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 4-5, 12-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped, and a single rejection analysis is performed, on a representative claim for the group.
Claims 1, 3-5, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006.
Regarding claim 1, representative of claim 20, Wu discloses
tailoring at least one radome shell structural component of the radome to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist. {[Claim 2] The multi-layered structure of claim 1 wherein said two impedance matching layers used in conjunction with a radome or lens provide a substantially optimized transmission bandwidth for both transverse electric and transverse magnetic polarizations of said electromagnetic energy for an angle of incidence from 0 to 60 degrees}. In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification tailoring at least one radome shell structural component of the radome to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist is interpreted as the matching layers in the multi-layered structure of the radome that provide optimized transmission of electromagnetic energy in a given range of angles of incidence.
wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Ia-Dist comprises tailoring at least two distinct zones of the radome shell structural component, and wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at ang!es within the Combo-Ia-Dist comprises tailoring a characteristic of at least two structurally distinct zones that make up the radome shell structural component, wherein the characteristic is selected from the group consisting of a) a shape of each distinct zone, b) a placement pattern of each distinct zone in the radome c) a size of each distinct zone d) a location of each distinct zone in the radome e) a structure of each distinct zone in the radome, and f) any combination thereof {{(9) Of particular importance are the electromagnetic characteristics of materials used in building the radome or lens. Currently, the structures used to produce radomes and lenses possess permittivities that are not equal to that of free space or of the atmosphere.; (13) The present invention provides an impedance matching design for a structure, such as a lens or radome, and its surrounding environment. The design employs two (2) impedance matching layers.} at least two structural components, a structure of each different zone in the radome is interpreted as the two impedance matching layers.}
Wu does not disclose, however Hallendorff discloses
determining a Combination Incidence Angle Distribution (Combo-Iα-Dist) corresponding to the Combo-Lα-Dist, and {[page 13] graphical method were used to determine the angle of incidence as a function of station position along the perimeter as the antenna system is rotated. Figure 5 is a plot of the angle of incidence versus perimeter location L for both A’ and A’’. Note that at each gimbal angle (except 0°) the antenna apertures look through the radome at different points along the perimeters with different angles of incidence } In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification determining combination incidence angle distribution corresponding to the Combo-Lα-Dist is interpreted as determining angle of incidence as a function of the station position which corresponds with the look of the antenna aperture.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu with Hallendorf. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of optimal tailoring to the most relevant incidence angles, and that more precise determination would be made on something more easily and accurately measurable, which is in this case the look angle and - the appropriate distribution respectively.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Hallendorff is merely relied upon to illustrate the determination of incident angles (and consequently incident angle distribution) from the look angles, which are much easier and more precisely to measure and record during flights. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles and determining incident angles from look angles are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu and Hallendorff would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorff.
Wu, Hallendorff does not disclose, however Gardi discloses
calculating a Combination Looking Angle Distribution (Combo-Lα-Dist) for the set number N of flight paths FPN {[Page 31 Section 6.4] Fig. 31 depicts a number of feasible and unfeasible avoidance trajectories generated by LOAS in real-time in the presence of multiple obstacles. Adopting a multi-phase trajectory optimisation formulation, the selection of the optimal trajectory along the first phase (safe steering) is typically based on minimising a cost function of the form… d {w,w,w ,w t d id f} are the positive weightings attributed to time, distance, integral distance and fuel respectively. In time-critical avoidance applications (i.e., closing-up obstacles with high relative velocities) appropriate higher weightings are used for the time and distance cost elements.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification (which recites ”the third step 130 of calculating a Combination Looking Angle Distribution (Combo-Lα-Dist) for the set number N of flight paths FPN may further include weighting each flight path FPN and using the weighted value for calculating the Combo-Lα-Dist. According to particular embodiments, weighting of each flight path may be based on a particular variable, such as, 1) distance of a given flight path relative to the other flight paths,”) the limitation is interpreted as calculating a weighted sum of contributing factors (the look angle distributions) where weight factors are determined by conditions such as the distance of a path relative to other paths. Thus the calculation of looking angle distribution for a set of flight paths is interpreted as a calculation that gives different weightings to distance cost elements.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff with Gardi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of optimal tailoring to the most relevant incidence angles as affected by different various factors over each path, and that more suited overall with the incident over a multitude of paths and conditions encountered.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Gardi is merely relied upon to illustrate how to aggregate the results from multiple paths and conditions. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles and determining the incident angles histogram over a number of conditions are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff and Gardi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorffin further view of Gardi.
Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi does not disclose, however Thompson discloses
determining a Looking Angle Distribution (Lα-Dist) for each flight path FPN, {[page 36, second paragraph] Because the airplane is flying at a constant altitude and radius of curvature) its roll and pitch angles are fixed and equal to 21.5° and 5.6°) respectively. The local elevation and azimuth look-angle time histories for the transmitting and receiving antenna units are given in figures A-IS and A-19. [page 34] G2 (A_T) is obtained from the data of figure A-9(b). Similarly for the azimuth guidance system, G7 (AZT) is set equal to 0 dB and its elevation look-angle distribution G 1 (ELT) is derived from _Figure A-9(a).}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi with Thompson’s. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of optimal tailoring to the most relevant incidence angles using the exact angle measured over each path.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Thompson is merely relied upon to illustrate obtaining the look angle in each path. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, angles which are obtained from look angles, and determining the look angles are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi and Thomson would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorffin further view of Gardi, in further view of Thompson
Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson does not disclose, however Chang discloses
defining a set number N of flight paths FPN, wherein each flight path FPN is between a first city and a second city, {[Abstract] This paper presents a method, using a fast graph-search algorithm, of finding a feasible flight path for an air vehicle that flies between two locations. [page 466 last paragraph] We next examine briefly the effect of varying the minimum turn angles and also the limited directions of take-off and landing. Shown in Fig. 16, the red solid lines represent the resulted paths… the algorithm begins to find the shortest path on the finer map by search…} defining a set number N of flight paths FPN, wherein each flight path FPN is between a first city and a second city is interpreted as the feasible paths for a vehicle that flies between two locations, where number of paths depends on various constraints which reduce the number, e.g. with paths with minimum turn angles or the one with shortest path.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson with Chang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of collecting the data on the flight paths that would be of interest to optimize the radome for.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Chang is merely relied upon to illustrate obtaining the paths. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, depending on flight paths and, and determining the flight paths are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorff in further view of Gardi, in further view of Thompson in further view of Chang.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, Chang further discloses
wherein calculating the Combo-Lα-Dist for the set number N of flight paths FPN further comprises weighting each flight path FPN based on 1) distance of a given flight path relative to the other flight paths, 2) composition of leisure vs. business travel, 3) number of passengers on each flight (i.e. based on plane size), 4) use frequency of a flight path (i.e. how many times per day the flight path is traveled), 5) the number of people who buy Wi-Fi on a plane using a particular flight path. { [page 462 bottom] We proceed in this manner for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . until the cost of start point has been updated, …and then the optimal path with minimum distance cost can be found by the following procedure….….corresponding move of the shortest path from the start point to the destination point are recorded } weighting each path based on relative distance is interpreted as determining costs for each paths and determining the path with minimum distance cost as the shortest path (one single path , N=1).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with further elements of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of better characterizing the relevant collection of data on flight paths that would be of interest to optimize the radome for.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Further elements of Chang are merely relied upon to illustrate how to best reflect the influence of each path. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, depending on flight paths and, and determining the influence of each path are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorff in further view of Gardi, in further view of Thompson in further view of Chang.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, Chang further discloses
wherein N is equal to at least 1 flight path.
{ [page 462 bottom and 463 first paragraph] the optimal path with minimum distance cost can be found by the following procedure….….corresponding move of the shortest path from the start point to the destination point are recorded } N is equal to at least 1 flight path is interpreted as the one path with minimum distance cost - the shortest path. (One single path , N=1).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with further elements of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of better characterizing the relevant collection of data on flight paths that would be of interest to optimize the radome for, and for that determine on how many paths to consider, with some lower limits.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Further elements of Chang are merely relied upon to illustrate how the chose the number of flights. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, depending on flight paths and, and determining the number of flights are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorff in further view of Gardi, in further view of Thompson in further view of Chang.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent on claim 1, Chang further discloses
wherein N is equal to not greater than 29,000 flight paths. { [page 462 bottom and 463 first paragraph] the optimal path with minimum distance cost can be found by the following procedure….….corresponding move of the shortest path from the start point to the destination point are recorded } N not greater than 29,000 flight paths is interpreted as the one path with minimum distance cost - the shortest path. (One single path , N=1, N< 29,000).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with further elements of Chang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of better characterizing the relevant collection of data on flight paths that would be of interest to optimize the radome for, and for that determine on how many paths to consider, with some upper limits.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions. Further elements of Chang are merely relied upon to illustrate how the chose the number of flights. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, depending on flight paths and, and determining the number of flights are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu in view of Hallendorff in further view of Gardi, in further view of Thompson in further view of Chang.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of further view of Gariel et al, Trajectory Clustering and an Application to Airspace Monitoring, Trajectory Clustering and an Application to Airspace Monitoring, IEEE Trans Intel Transportation Sys, 2011
Regarding Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however Gariel further discloses
wherein defining a set number N of flight paths FPN further comprises utilizing a clustering algorithm to group flight paths by a characteristic. {[VI. Conclusion] This paper presented two trajectory clustering methods and an application to airspace monitoring. The first method clusters trajectories that have turns at the same spatial locations. The second methodologies is based on a principal components analysis of resampled and augmented trajectories. Those algorithm are used to determine typical operations. The monitoring tool compares the conformance of current flights to identified typical operations in real-time. The version of the tool presented in this paper monitors the landings at SFO, but it can easily be modified to monitor any traffic pattern, by modifying the input dataset.}
Clustering algorithm to group flight paths by a characteristic is interpreted as the clustering methods used to cluster trajectories that have turns at the same spatial location (given as an example to illustrate clustering).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with Gariel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of using known methods (of clustering) to form the grouping of paths with similar characteristics..
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome, and a minimization that is optimal if made over the multitude of encountered paths and conditions, where different weight is given to paths of different groups and characteristics. Gariel is merely relied upon to grouping of the paths using a grouping methodology. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, depending on flight paths and their characteristics , and grouping flight paths by characteristics using clustering are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and Gariel would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of Gariel.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of further view of US Raeker et al (US 20170133754)
Regarding Claim 6, dependent on claim 1, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however Raeker discloses
wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist comprises tailoring an exterior shape of the radome. {[0005] Each of these methods requires that the antenna and radome structure be designed concurrently to achieve the desired performance, increasing the risk that design limits of one would require re-designs of the other. Additionally, the methods usually require that the shape of the radome or antenna be modified from the standard spherical or cylindrical geometry}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with Raeker. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of using a better adaptation of the radome, adapting to antenna shapes and variable thickness of dielectric.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Raeker is merely relied upon to illustrate the tailoring to include radome outer shape. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring by choosing a suitable external shape are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and Raeker would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of Raeker.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of further view of Tang et al, Multidisciplinary Optimization of Airborne Radome Using Genetic Algorithm, AICI 2009, pp 150157, 2009
Regarding claim 9, dependent on claim 1, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however Tang discloses
wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist comprises tailoring a number of structurally distinct dielectric layers stacked on top of each other to make up the radome shell structural component. { [page 152 bottom] The choice of materials and wall thickness has a significant influence on the structural strength and electrical performance. The idea in this paper is to find the proper configuration of these parameters; [page 153 top2.2 Structural Analysis of Radome] The basic issue in radome structural analysis is the material definition. This is very difficult because multilayer thin walled configurations including the A sandwich, B sandwich, and C sandwich are often used as illustrated in Fig.3. Taking A sandwich for example, it consists of three layers: two dense high-strength skins separated by a lower-density, lower-dielectric core material such as foam or honeycomb. [Page 155 middle] In our applications, we consider the multilayer sandwich as the radome wall. The radome optimization takes the thicknesses of each layer as design variables.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}
In broadest reasonable interpretation number of structurally distinct dielectric layers stacked on top of each other are the sandwich multi-layer, placement patterns of each distinct zone are illustrated in the sandwich configurations.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with Tang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the ability of tailoring the radome shell to optimize EMG properties by properly combining different dielectric materials, acting on possible parameters of those components including their relative placement.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Tang is merely relied upon to illustrate the tailoring to of the shell with a proper combination of dielectric materials components, in particular their relative position. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring by choosing suitable suitable components and their parameters are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and Tang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of Tang.
Regarding claim 10, dependent on claim 1, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however Tang discloses
wherein tailoring at least one radome shell structural component to minimize electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist comprises tailoring a characteristic of at least two structurally distinct dielectric layers stacked on top of each other to make up the radome shell structural component,
wherein the characteristic is selected from the group consisting of: (a) a thickness of each distinct dielectric layer, (b) a material composition of each distinct dielectric layer, (c) an order of each distinct dielectric layer, (d) a “mesostructure” of each distinct dielectric layer, and (e) any combination thereof. { [page 152 bottom] The choice of materials and wall thickness has a significant influence on the structural strength and electrical performance. The idea in this paper is to find the proper configuration of these parameters; [page 153 top2.2 Structural Analysis of Radome] The basic issue in radome structural analysis is the material definition. This is very difficult because multilayer thin walled configurations including the A sandwich, B sandwich, and C sandwich are often used as illustrated in Fig.3. Taking A sandwich for example, it consists of three layers: two dense high-strength skins separated by a lower-density, lower-dielectric core material such as foam or honeycomb. [Page 155 middle] In our applications, we consider the multilayer sandwich as the radome wall. The radome optimization takes the thicknesses of each layer as design variables. [Page 156 top] In this section, the proposed optimization approach is demonstrated with a paraboloidal radome. For the structural analysis, the finite element model is illustrated in Fig.5. The A sandwich radome wall is modeled as a 7 layered laminate. Each skin is constructed with 3 layers, while the core is constructed with 1 layer.}
Fig 3 and Table 1 are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
297
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
}
In broadest reasonable interpretation at least two structurally distinct zones are the sandwich multi-layer, thickness of each distinct dielectric layer and material composition of each distinct dielectric layer are illustrated by the choice of materials and wall thickness.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with Tang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the ability of tailoring the radome shell to optimize EMG properties by properly combining different dielectric materials, acting on possible parameters of those components (materials, size, etc).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Tang is merely relied upon to illustrate the tailoring to of the shell with a proper combination of dielectric materials components. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring by choosing suitable suitable components and their parameters are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and Tang would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of Tang.
Claims 11-12, 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020
Regarding claim 11, dependent on claim 1, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however RADOME discloses
wherein minimizing electromagnetic degradation of electromagnetic waves intersecting the radome at angles within the Combo-Iα-Dist comprises minimizing an electromagnetic degradation selected from the group consisting of transmission loss for any incident polarization, co-polarization loss, cross-polarization loss, polarization change, boresight error, sidelobe level increase, main beam shape distortion, reflected power, noise increase, antenna VSWR increase or combinations thereof. {[Radome Framework Impedance Matching] one method of reducing radome transmission loss …}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with RADOME. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with less interference with the intended communication.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. RADOME is merely relied upon to illustrate the minimization of an important component that degrades the EMG communication, respectively the transmissions loss. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring by reducing transmission loss are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and RADOME would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of RADOME.
Regarding claim 12, dependent on claim 11, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang do not disclose, however RADOME discloses
wherein the radome comprises a transmission loss of not greater than -0.1 dB.
https://radome.net/tl.html 2020 {[Radome Framework Impedance Matching] one method of reducing radome transmission loss (Scattering loss) is to reduce the framework electronic signature….
Note that impedance matching decreases C-band transmission loss 5-fold from 0.5 dB to 0.1 dB.}
One should observe here the examiner note at the beginning of the Office Action, which makes the point that transmission loss is commonly expressed as a positive number.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang with RADOME. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with less interference with the intended communication, and 0.1dB is a good value as transmission loss.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. RADOME is merely relied upon to illustrate the minimization of an important component that degrades the EMG communication, respectively the transmissions loss. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring by reducing transmission loss are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang and RADOME would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang in further view of RADOME.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 11, Hallendorf further discloses
wherein the radome comprises a boresight error of not greater than 20 mrad.
{[Fig 10] shows errors below 0.9 ‘spatial degrees’ i.e. 0.9o }}. 1o converted to mrad is PI/180 radians, approx. 17 mrad. 17mrad< 20mrad. QED.
PNG
media_image3.png
434
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with further teaching of Hallendorff. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with small boresight error, and 20 mrad is a an acceptably small value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Hallendorff further elements are merely relied upon to illustrate the minimization of an important component that degrades the EMG communication, respectively the boresight error. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to reduce boresight error are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and further elements of Hallendorff would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020, in further view of Gampala et al Efficient Design and Analysis of Airborne Radomes, microwavejournal May 13, 2015
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 11, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME do not disclose, however Gampala discloses
wherein the radome comprises a sidelobe level increase of not greater than 10 dB. {[After Figure 3] The sidelobe levels are increased by 5.4 dB, because the signal blockage from the radome reflects RF energy back and reduces the gain.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with Gampala. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with a reduced increase in sidelobe levels, and 10 db is a reasonable value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Gampala is merely relied upon to illustrate the minimization of an important component that degrades the EMG communication, respectively not increasing sidelobe levels. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to not increase sidelobe levels are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Gampala would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Gampala.
Claims 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020, in further view of Qamar et al, An Ultra-Wide Band Radome for High-Performance and Dual-Polarized Radar and Communication Systems, IEEE Access, 2020
Regarding claim 13, dependent on claim 11, Wu, Hallendorf, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME do not disclose, however Qamar discloses
[A13] wherein the radome comprises a co-polarization loss of at least -5.0 dB.
{see Fig 4} . Figure 4 reproduced in the following. S21 is interpreted as co-polarization loss. The values in Fig 4 show at least -5dB (in fact, much better, at least -0.5dB) for a wide range of frequencies.
PNG
media_image4.png
539
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with Qamar. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with superior performance including the good performance under co-polarization loss, and-5 dB is a reasonable value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Qamar is merely relied upon to illustrate an aspirational target parameter for minimization, respectively co-polarization loss. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to minimize co-polarization loss are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Qamar would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Furthermore, the claim defines a result-effective variable – minimizing co-polarization loss, which is a known goal in radome design, and thus one would have been motivated to include this variable in the multi-criteria minimization for the radome.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Qamar.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME do not disclose, however Qamar discloses:
wherein the radome comprises a polarization change of at least -100 dB. {[199372 bottom] radome having a depolarization ratio of −10 dB, [199375] Fig. 6c,d shows a 2-D graph of insertion loss for both polarizations at oblique incident angles. The red line is an insertion loss threshold equals to 0.3 dB, which shows that radome works up to 55◦ . The 0.1 dB mismatch as a threshold can be observed in both polarizations} Measurements graphs show co-and cross pol losses under 0.5dB and co-pol mismatch < 0.1dB demonstrating standard methods to minimize polarization change.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with Qamar.
The claim defines a result-effective variable – minimizing polarization change, which is a known goal in radome design, as is reducing co-pol loss, and thus one would have been motivated to further minimize polarization change towards 100 dB. The art teaches radome designs and materials (multilayer dielectric stacks, sandwich structures) to further reduce polarization distortion and cross- pol leakage, minimize polarization change. Qamar discloses it in current reference, also Tang et al, Multidisciplinary Optimization of Airborne Radome Using Genetic Algorithm, AICI 2009, pp 150157, 2009
It would be obvious to a POSITA to use standard tactics to further minimize polarization loss towards lowest possible values, and would have been obvious to try various numbers, such as -60db, -70db -80dB -90dB or even-100dB, even if only to see the limits of the possible through a chosen minimization process.
Under 2144.05 II. Routine optimization, II (see e.g. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); Also, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. (the “finite number” for trying are the -60 dB, -70 dB, -80 dB , -90dB, 100dB indicated in the specification.
Achieving lower polarization change is predictable with known techniques like multi-layer of dielectrics, improved materials, etc. Even if exact -100dB isn’t in the prior art, design modifications to reach for it are obvious, especially since co-pol mismatch can already be < 0.1dB.
In conclusion, because minimizing polarization change is a known design objective, prior art already achieves less that -30 to -60dB levels, and the claimed -100dB threshold merely represents a result-effective optimization, claim 15 is obvious under 103.
As a further argument, should it be found needed, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Qamar is merely relied upon to illustrate an aspirational target parameter for minimization, respectively polarization change. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to minimize polarization change are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Qamar would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Qamar.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020, in further view of Mancini, et al, Novel Instrument for Real-Time Measurement of Attenuation of Weather Radar Radome Including Its Outer Surface. Part I: The Concept, 2018
Re claim 14, should it be found that Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME do not explicitly disclose, Mancini discloses:
wherein the radome comprises a cross-polarization loss of not greater than -10 dB.
{ see at least Mancini p965 Table 7} Table 7 from Mancini, reproduced below, indicates better than -33dB which is a smaller loss than -10dB.
PNG
media_image5.png
136
356
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with Mancini. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with superior performance including the good performance under cross-polarization loss, and-10 dB is a reasonable value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Mancini is merely relied upon to illustrate an aspirational target parameter for minimization, respectively co-polarization loss. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to minimize co-polarization loss are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Mancini would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Furthermore, the claim defines a result-effective variable – minimizing cross-polarization loss, which is a known goal in radome design, and thus one would have been motivated to include this variable in the multi-criteria minimization for the radome.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Mancini
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020, in further view of Ametek, NSI-MI Radome Test Systems, Military 2021
Regarding Claim 18 Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME do not explicitly disclose, however Ametek discloses
wherein the radome comprises a main beam shape distortion of not greater than 5%. {[page 2 middle] Pattern Distortion: +/- 0.5 dB} A 0.5dB pattern distortion corresponds to 6% amplitude deviation which encompasses a wide range of beam shape effects (main beam deflection, beamwidth variation etc). Thus main beam shape distortion of not greater than 5% is interpreted as pattern distortion of 0.5dB.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with AMETEK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with superior performance including the good performance in respect to main beam shape distortion, and-5% is a reasonable aspirational value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Ametek is merely relied upon to illustrate an aspirational target parameter for minimization, respectively main beam shape distortion. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to minimize main beam shape distortion are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Ametek would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Furthermore, the claim defines a result-effective variable – minimizing reflected power, which is a known goal in radome design, and thus one would have been motivated to include this variable in the multi-criteria minimization for the radome.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Ametek
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, (US 5017939 A) in view of Hallendorff R. H, A Method of Radome Compensation with Broadband Capability, 1964 in further view of Gardi et al, Multi-objective optimization of aircraft flight trajectories in the ATM and avionics context, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 83, p 1-36, 2016, in further view of Thompson et al, MLS Airplane System Modeling NASA Contractor Report CR 165700, 1981, in further view of Chang et al Two-Point Flight Path Planning Using a Fast Graph-Search Algorithm, 2006, in further view of RADOME https://radome.net/tl.html 2020, in further view of Tice et al. Techniques for Airborne Radome Design, 1966
Regarding Claim 19 Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME do not explicitly disclose, however Tice discloses
wherein the radome comprises a reflected power of not greater than -0.1 dB.
{[Pg 271 Fig 5.33]} see graph below. A -0.1dB reflected power corresponds to a Power Reflection (R2) of 0.955. The graph shows all reflected power values below 0.7, which means all satisfy the requirement.
PNG
media_image6.png
497
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME with Tice. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of the having a radome with superior performance including the good performance in respect to power reflection, and-0.1 dB is a reasonable aspirational value.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thompson, Chang, RADOME evidently discloses methods to tailor radome to minimize degradation of electromagnetic (EMG) waves incident to the radome. Tice is merely relied upon to illustrate an aspirational target parameter for minimization, respectively co-polarization loss. As best understood by Examiner, since tailoring the radome to minimize degradation under EMG incident angles, and tailoring to minimize reflected power are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Wu, Hallendorff, Gardi, Thomson, Chang, RADOME and Tice would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Furthermore, the claim defines a result-effective variable – minimizing reflected power, which is a known goal in radome design, and thus one would have been motivated to include this variable in the multi-criteria minimization for the radome.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Wu/Hallendorff/Gardi/Thompson/Chang/RADOME in further view of Tice
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20130002514
US 20100039346 A1
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188