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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 4-6 of 7) about amended claim 1 , Examiner disagrees.
1) For the argument “Therefore, Ridge fails to teach the following feature: the radar beacon further comprises: fixing members, which are connected between the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens, and are configured to fix a relative position of the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens.”(REMARKS page 5 of 7 below Fig.2 and Fig.5 lines 6-9), Examiner disagrees because Ridge (‘965) discloses that “fixing members, which are connected between the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens, and are configured to fix a relative position of the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens” { Fig.2 item 25 ; col.4 lines 12-13 (A radar absorbing annular ring 25 is provided to seal the gap 23); Examiner’s note: the length of item 25 determines the relative position between lens (item 22) and 24 (reflector). Therefore in addition to seal the gap 23, item 25 also determines the relative position between lens (item 22) and 24 (reflector)};
PNG
media_image1.png
477
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2) For the argument “Therefore, Ridge fails to teach the following feature: the radar beacon further comprises: the reflection apparatus is arranged on a spherical surface, the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the spherical surface, a curvature of the spherical surface is the same as that of the reflecting surface, the spherical surface is formed by focal points of the spherical lens in different directions, the spherical surface and the spherical lens have a same circle center” (REMARKS page 5 of 7 lines 1-6 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because Ridge (‘965) discloses that
the reflection apparatus is arranged on a spherical surface, the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the spherical surface, a curvature of the spherical surface is the same as that of the reflecting surface {Fig.2 item 24 see mark below; Examiner’s note: item 25 is a ring, therefore item 24 is a portion of “a spherical surface”},
PNG
media_image2.png
477
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the spherical surface is formed by focal points of the spherical lens in different directions {Fig.5 item 54 (focus); col.4 line 46 and Eq.(3) (radius m at which focus will occur is given by:
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); col.5 lines 44-46 (microwave rays 52 incident at an angle of incidence 53 equal to 45° are brought to a focus 54 at the reflecting surface of the lens) ; Examiner’s note: different θ and φ values determine m},
the spherical surface and the spherical lens have a same circle center {Fig.2 (see mark below)},
PNG
media_image4.png
477
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3) For the argument “Therefore, Ridge fails to teach the following feature: a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens, the spherical lens is a single medium spherical lens, a dielectric constant of the material of the single medium spherical lens is the same.” (REMARKS page 6 of 7 lines 4-7), Examiner disagrees because:
a) Based on the claimed language, Ridge (‘965) discloses that
a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens {Fig.2 (see marks below); col.4 lines 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs), Eq.(1) (
PNG
media_image5.png
21
97
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), Eq.(2) (
PNG
media_image6.png
31
53
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), 46 (radius m at which focus will occur is given by), Eq.(3)(
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); Examiner’s note: “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” can be interpreted in different ways. For example “a distance” can be minimum distance m-R, which is determined by the parameters in Eq.(3). “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” can also be a transmission path of a ray based on the values of θ, φ, and position of signal source. },
PNG
media_image7.png
430
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the spherical lens is a single medium spherical lens { col.4 lines 9 (lens 22), 27 (spherical lens), 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs},
a dielectric constant of the material of the single medium spherical lens is the same { abstract lines 1-2 (a sond lens (50) of substantially uniform dielectric constant); col.4 lines 9 (lens 22), 27 (spherical lens), 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs}.
b) From the claimed language, it is not clear how “a distance”, which is one value, equals to a data range “0.4 R to 0.5 R” and it is not clear that “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” is a distance of a transmission path of a ray “between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” or a spacing of “the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens”.
c) Based on a best interpretation of the claimed language as " a minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is within 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens ", Ridge (‘965) discloses the claimed invention except for clearly saying the exactly same amount of “0.4 R to 0.5 R” of minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose “0.4 R to 0.5 R” as minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens since the claimed ranges “0.4 R to 0.5 R” and the prior art range shown in Fig.2 is close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to properly select the gap based on the determination formula of theory { Ridge (‘965) col.4 Eq.(3)} and the lens material as needed so as to offer a focus based on dielectric constant of the lens, as recognized by Ridge (‘965) { col.4 lines 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs), Eq.(1) (
PNG
media_image5.png
21
97
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), Eq.(2) (
PNG
media_image6.png
31
53
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), 46 (radius m at which focus will occur is given by), Eq.(3)(
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), 50-53 (where R is the radius of the lens. The rays are focused on to the rear surface of the lens when equations 1 to 3 are satisfied for m=R with θ=45° when the dielectric constant ɛs=3.414.)}.
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 1-2, 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens " in lines 16-17. It is indefinite because: 1) it is not clear how “a distance”, which is one value, equals to a data range “0.4 R to 0.5 R”. 2) it is not clear that “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” is a distance of a transmission path of a ray “between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” or a spacing of “the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is a value within 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens ". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2, 5-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2, 5-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge et al. (US 4,973,965, hereafter Ridge).
Regarding claim 1, Ridge (‘965) discloses that A radar beacon { Fig.2; Fig.5; col.4 lines 1 (radar enhancement), 4 (lens-reflector assembly 21)}, comprising:
a spherical lens, of which a focal point is located on a curved surface concentric with the spherical lens { Fig.2 items 22 (spherical lens); Fig.5 items 50 (spherical lens), 54 (focus); col.4 lines 9 (lens 22), 27 (spherical lens); col.5 lines 37-38 (lens 50, sphere), 46 (focus 54)}; and
a reflection apparatus, which is provided with a reflecting surface with the same curvature as the curved surface, is arranged on the curved surface { Fig.2 item 24 (reflector); Fig.5 item 51 (reflector); col.4 lines 9 (reflector 24), 27 (spherical lens with a reflecting coating); col.5 lines 40-41 (reflecting coating 51, over a hemisphere.)},
wherein the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the curved surface {Fig.2 item 22 (spherical lens), 24 (reflector); Fig.5 items 50 (lens), 51 (reflector), same curvature}, and is configured to reflect an electromagnetic wave incident through the spherical lens {Fig.5 items 50 (lens), 51 (reflector), 52 (microwave rays), 53 (angle of incidence), 54 (focus); col.1 lines 23-26 (radar microwaves are focused by the lens on to a concave reflector and thence through the lens and back towards the radar emitter); col.4 lines 9-10 (lens 22, reflector 24, microwave energy is focused on to the reflector); col.5 lines 44-46 (microwave rays 52 incident at an angle of incidence 53 equal to 45° are brought to a 45 focus 54 at the reflecting surface of the lens)},
wherein the radar beacon further comprises:
fixing members, which are connected between the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens, and are configured to fix a relative position of the reflection apparatus and the spherical lens { Fig.2 item 25 (see marks below); col.4 lines 12-13 (A radar absorbing annular ring 25 is provided to seal the gap 23); Examiner’s note: the length of item 25 determines the relative position between lens (item 22) and 24 (reflector). Therefore in addition to seal the gap 23, item 25 also determines the relative position between lens (item 22) and 24 (reflector)};
PNG
media_image1.png
477
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the reflection apparatus is arranged on a spherical surface, the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the spherical surface, a curvature of the spherical surface is the same as that of the reflecting surface {Fig.2 item 24 (see marks below); Examiner’s note: item 25 is a ring, therefore item 24 is a portion of “a spherical surface”},
PNG
media_image2.png
477
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the spherical surface is formed by focal points of the spherical lens in different directions {Fig.5 item 54 (focus); col.4 line 46 and Eq.(3) (radius m at which focus will occur is given by:
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); col.5 lines 44-46 (microwave rays 52 incident at an angle of incidence 53 equal to 45° are brought to a focus 54 at the reflecting surface of the lens) ; Examiner’s note: different θ and φ values determine m},
the spherical surface and the spherical lens have a same circle center {Fig.2 (see marks below)},
PNG
media_image4.png
477
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens {Fig.2 (see marks below); col.4 lines 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs), Eq.(1) (
PNG
media_image5.png
21
97
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), Eq.(2) (
PNG
media_image6.png
31
53
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), 46 (radius m at which focus will occur is given by), Eq.(3)(
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); Examiner’s note: “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” can be interpreted in different ways. For example “a distance” can be minimum distance m-R, which is determined by the parameters in Eq.(3). “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” can also be a transmission path of a ray based on the values of θ, φ, and position of signal source.},
PNG
media_image7.png
430
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the spherical lens is a single medium spherical lens { col.4 lines 9 (lens 22), 27 (spherical lens), 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs},
a dielectric constant of the material of the single medium spherical lens is the same {abstract lines 1-2 (a sond lens (50) of substantially uniform dielectric constant); col.4 lines 9 (lens 22), 27 (spherical lens), 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs}.
If “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens” is interpreted as “a minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens”, Ridge (‘965) discloses the claimed invention except for clearly saying the exactly same amount of “0.4 R to 0.5 R” of minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose “0.4 R to 0.5 R” as minimum distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens since the claimed ranges “0.4 R to 0.5 R” and the prior art range shown in Fig.2 is close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to properly select the gap based on the determination formula of theory { Ridge (‘965) col.4 Eq.(3)} and the lens material as needed so as to offer a focus based on dielectric constant of the lens, as recognized by Ridge (‘965) { col.4 lines 31-32 (a solid lens of dielectric constant ɛs), Eq.(1) (
PNG
media_image5.png
21
97
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), Eq.(2) (
PNG
media_image6.png
31
53
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), 46 (radius m at which focus will occur is given by), Eq.(3)(
PNG
media_image3.png
32
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), 50-53 (where R is the radius of the lens. The rays are focused on to the rear surface of the lens when equations 1 to 3 are satisfied for m=R with θ=45° when the dielectric constant ɛs=3.414.)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Ridge (‘965) discloses that in the radar beacon,
the reflection apparatus is a portion of a target object {Abstract lines 1-3 (passive radar target comprises a sond lens (50) of substantially uniform dielectric constant, having a reflecting surface (51)); col.1 lines 4-6 (radar reflectors or targets and in particular to lens arrangements for enhancing the radar cross-section of a target.), 8-9 (enhance the. radar cross section for the yachts'), 11-13 (reflectors are also used in targets for weapon practice where radar signatures are tailored to simulate practical targets.)}.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge (‘965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 8,773,319, hereafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Ridge (‘965) does not explicitly disclose “the material of the spherical lens is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”. In the same field of endeavor, Anderson (‘319) discloses that
the material of the spherical lens is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) { Col.2 lines 51-52 (dielectric lens 104 can comprise one or more dielectric materials), 64 (dielectric material is polytetrafluoroethylene)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ridge (‘965) with the teachings of Anderson (‘319) {use polytetrafluoroethylene to make a lens} to use polytetrafluoroethylene to make a lens. Doing so would be readily shaped (e.g., by machining) and are sufficiently flexible to expand or contract in response to changes in ambient temperature, mechanical vibrations and also provide relatively low permittivity and relatively high power handling capability, as recognized by Anderson (‘319) {col.2 lines 57-60 (readily shaped (e.g., by machining) and are sufficiently flexible to expand or contract in response to changes in ambient temperature, mechanical vibrations), 62-63 (relatively low permittivity and relatively high power handling capability)}.
Claims 5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge (‘965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aikin et al. (US 2018/0081094, hereafter Aikin).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Ridge (‘965) discloses that in the radar beacon, the radar beacon further comprises:
a support member, {Fig.11 items 118-119 (support); col.7 lines 28-30 (118,119 which support the double reflector 113 centrally within the spherical lens 116)}.
However, Ridge (‘965) does not explicitly disclose “a support member, which is arranged under the spherical lens”. In the same field of endeavor, Aikin (‘094) discloses that
a support member, which is arranged under the spherical lens, and is configured to support the radar beacon { Fig.6 items 602 (outer body panel), 604 (refractive spheres), 606 (reflector); [0045] line 17 (lens 504a may refract); [0046] lines 5-6 (refractive spheres 604 may be at least partially embedded in the outer body panel 602); [0048] lines 1 (refractive spheres 604), 4 (reflective layer 606); }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ota Ridge (‘965) with the teachings of Aikin (‘094) {embed refractive spheres in a body} to embed refractive spheres in a body. Doing so would fix the reflector system to an application location (e.g. on vehicle) as needed to allow radar signal pass through and reflect a radar signal so as to improve detectability of the vehicles, as recognized by Aikin (‘094) {[0002] lines 11-12 (improving detectability of the vehicles.); [0003] lines 2-3 (retroreflectors is configured to reflect a radar signal), 7-8 (retroreflectors may be at least partially embedded in an outer body panel of a vehicle. The outer body panel is configured to allow the radar signal to pass through to the plurality of retroreflectors); [0016] lines 19-21 (the retroreflector system 100 may be affixed to the vehicle 110 by an adhesive surface configured to adhere to the vehicle 110 at one or more locations)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Ridge (‘965) does not explicitly disclose “the reflection apparatus further comprises a reflecting base plate, and the reflecting surface is attached to the reflecting base plate”. In the same field of endeavor, Aikin (‘094) discloses that in the radar beacon,
the reflection apparatus further comprises a reflecting base plate, and the reflecting surface is attached to the reflecting base plate {Fig.6 item 606; [0048] lines 8-9 (reflective layer 606 may be a rigid material covered by a conductive coating.); Examiner’s note: “a conductive coating” for “the reflecting surface”. “reflective layer 606” for “a reflecting base plate”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ota Ridge (‘965) with the teachings of Aikin (‘094) { use a rigid material covered by a conductive coating to make reflective layer} to use a rigid material covered by a conductive coating to make reflective layer. Doing so would reflect the signal to the signal source as a reflected signal to allow radar signal pass through and reflect a radar signal so as to improve detectability of the vehicles, as recognized by Aikin (‘094) {[0002] lines 11-12 (improving detectability of the vehicles.); [0003] lines 2-3 (retroreflectors is configured to reflect a radar signal), 7-8 (retroreflectors may be at least partially embedded in an outer body panel of a vehicle. The outer body panel is configured to allow the radar signal to pass through to the plurality of retroreflectors); [0048] lines 4-5 (include a reflective layer 606 configured to reflect the signal 624 to the signal source 622 as a reflected signal 626)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 7, the combination of Ridge (‘965) and Aikin (‘094) disclose that in the radar beacon,
an outer edge of the reflecting base plate is circular {see Ridge (‘965) Fig.5 items 50 (lens), 51 (reflector); Fig.9 item 92 (reflector); col.5 lines 37-38 (lens 50, moulded sphere); col.6 lines 19-20 (A hemispherical aluminium reflector 92); Examiner’s note: outer edges of item 51 in Fig.5 and item 92 in Fig.9 are circular}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridge (‘965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephens (US 2005/0270228, hereafter Stephens).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Ridge (‘965) disclose that in the radar beacon,
the reflecting surface of the reflection apparatus is made by a {col.1 line 35 (metallic reflector); col.3 lines 67-68 (metallised reflecting layer); col.4 line 27 (spherical lens with a reflecting coating)}.
However, Ridge (‘965) does not explicitly disclose the metal is “copper”. In the same field of endeavor, Stephens (‘228) discloses that
the reflecting surface of the reflection apparatus is made by a copper plating process {[0100] lines 17-18 ( to manufacture passive reflectors 1010 and 1012 that reflect electromagnetic pulses include, but are not limited to, conductors such as aluminum, copper)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ridge (‘965) with the teachings of Stephens (‘228) {use copper for passive reflector } to use copper for passive reflector. Doing so would reflect radar electromagnetic pulses using conductor (e.g. copper) made passive reflectors so as to achieve a low-cost, yet highly accurate, local positioning system using electromagnetic pulses to determine ranges and, optionally, angles between a device and a number of active landmarks, as recognized by Stephens (‘228) {[0006] lines 1-4 (In a low-cost, yet highly accurate, local positioning System, electromagnetic pulses are used to determine ranges and, optionally, angles between a device and a number of active landmarks.); [0100] lines 17-20 (materials that may be employed to manufacture passive reflectors 1010 and 1012 that reflect electromagnetic pulses include, but are not limited to, conductors such as aluminum, copper)}.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grewe et al. (DE 102014216276, hereafter Grewe) in view of Ridge (‘965).
Regarding claim 10, Grewe (‘276) discloses that A radar measurement system { page 10 [0045] lines 2-3 (position determining device 118 comprising a radar sensor 101, a computing unit 114 and a memory unit 117.)}, comprising:
a measurement radar { Fig.1 item 101 (radar sensor); page 10 [0045] lines 2-3 (position determining device 118 comprising a radar sensor 101, a computing unit 114 and a memory unit 117.); page 10 [0046] line 1 (radar sensor 101); page 11 [0047] lines 8-11 (The vehicle 100 can calculate its relative position to the radar beacon, for example, from the angle 116 and from the distance to the radar beacon 103, which can be determined by measuring the propagation time of the signals 102 and 104.)}; and
at least one radar beacon { Fig.1 items 103, 105, 107 (radar beacons); page 10 [0046] lines 2-3 (radar beacons 103, 105, 107 and 111 which are placed in the vicinity of the motor vehicle 100)} according to claim 1 {see the rejections of claim 1 above}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Grewe (‘276) with the teachings of Ridge (‘965) {use passive radar target comprising lens with a reflecting layer} to use passive radar target comprising lens with a reflecting layer. Doing so would enhance the radar cross-section of a target (e.g. yachts) so as to make the target more visible to scanning radar of nearby targets for the target’s safety, as recognized by Ridge (‘965) {Abstract lines 1-3 (passive radar target comprises a sond lens (50) of substantially uniform dielectric constant, having a reflecting surface (51)); col.1 lines 4-6 (radar reflectors or targets and in particular to lens arrangements for enhancing the radar cross-section of a target.), 8-13 (enhance the. radar cross section for the yachts' safety by making them more visible to scanning radars of nearby ships, reflectors are also used in targets for weapon practice where radar signatures are tailored to simulate practical targets.)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,288,337 discloses that “wherein the reflection apparatus is arranged on a spherical surface, the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the spherical surface, a curvature of the spherical surface is the same as that of the reflecting surface” {Fig.11; col.7 lines 8-9 (reflecting plates 22 are arranged to cover the sides of the spherical surface)}, “the spherical surface is formed by focal points of the spherical lens in different directions” {Fig.11 (see the lines with arrows)}, “the spherical surface and the spherical lens have a same circle center” {Fig.11; col.7 lines 5 (lens 18), 8-9 (reflecting plates 22 are arranged to cover the sides of the spherical surface)}, “the spherical lens is a single medium spherical lens” { Fig.11 item 18 (lens)}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
US 8471,757 discloses that “the reflection apparatus is arranged on a spherical surface, the reflecting surface coincides with a portion of the spherical surface” {Fig.23}, “a curvature of the spherical surface is the same as that of the reflecting surface” {Fig.23}, “the spherical surface is formed by focal points of the spherical lens in different directions” {Fig.21}, “the spherical surface and the spherical lens have a same circle center” { Fig.23}, “a distance between the curved surface and a surface of the spherical lens is 0.4 R to 0.5 R, R is the radius of the spherical lens” {Fig.24; col.28 line 26 (dielectric lens 2); col.34 line 33 (reflector 60 which has reflecting bodies 64a-64c); Examiner’s note: Spacing between surface of item 2 and item 64a-c is about “0.4 R to 0.5 R”}, “the spherical lens is a single medium spherical lens” {Fig.23 item 2}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648