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 07/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-26 and 32 are currently pending. Claims 3 and 9 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action of 02/24/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-26 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 2) recites the term “substantially planar annular bonding surface”. However, the remainder of claim 1 refers to the term “the annular bonding surface” which lacks exact antecedent basis. Dependent claims also recite “the annular bonding surface” which again lacks exact antecedent basis. These terms should be amended to remove the lack of exact antecedent basis objection, either by amending all instances of “annular bonding surface” to “substantially planar annular bonding surface” or by amending “substantially planar annular bonding surface”.
Claim 14 (line 2): “at least a some of the second portion” should be amended to “at least some of the second portion”.
Claim 26: “a portion of the radome fabric…” should be amended to “a second portion of the radome fabric…” as “a portion” lacks exact antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14-17, 21-26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS document Numano et al. (JPH0583022A; hereinafter Numano) in view of Suzuki et al. (JPH0936653A; hereinafter Suzuki).
Claim 1: Numano discloses “a radome assembly for an antenna (¶1, “a planar antenna suitable for use in the quasi-millimeter wave band”; fig. 3, radial slot antenna 2 and radome 5), comprising:
a mounting ring (fig. 4, circular frame 1) comprising an annular bonding surface (annotated fig. 4, BS);
a layer of radome film (fig. 4, radome 5; radome 5 is a thin covering and is therefore a film) bonded to (¶4; “reference numeral 5 denotes a radome which covers the front of the antenna and is adapted for outdoor use and to seal the junction with the peripheral edge of the frame 1 with a silicon adhesive”) the annular bonding surface (BS) and comprising:
a first portion (P1) extending radially inwardly (annotated fig. 4, direction RI) of the annular bonding surface; and
a second portion (P2) extending radially outwardly (annotated fig. 4, direction RO) of the annular bonding surface; and
an annular enclosing element (fig. 4, protective ring 7) located radially outwardly (RO) of the annular bonding surface (BS) which encloses or covers at least some of the second portion (P2)”.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the annular bonding surface is substantially planar; and the first portion tensioned by the annular bonding surface”.
However, Numano discloses (¶7) that hot melt resin used as an adhesive is injected into a “predetermined portion” of the joint between the frame 1 and the radome 5. Moreover, the different embodiments shown in figures 1, 2 and 5 show that the annular bonding surfaces may have different shapes. A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that these predetermined portions could be the planar portion of the annular bonding surface (BS) shown in annotated fig. 4.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein the annular bonding surface is substantially planar, to ensure that the radome film and the annular bonding surface are in close contact in order to form a more robust radome assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the first portion being tensioned by the annular bonding surface, Suzuki teaches a radome (fig. 4 below, 47) that is made of a material such as AES resin (¶2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an AES resin can stretch and therefore be tensioned.
PNG
media_image2.png
302
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Numano radome assembly with the radome of Suzuki which can be tensioned by the annular bonding surface. Doing so allows for a radome with excellent weather resistance and less susceptible to UV degradation.
Claim 2: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano also discloses (fig. 4) “wherein the annular enclosing element (7) covers a periphery of the radome film (5)”.
Claim 4: Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein all portions of the annular bonding surface (BS) lie in a same plane”.
However, Numano discloses (¶7) that hot melt resin used as an adhesive is injected into the joint between the frame 1 and the radome. Moreover, the different embodiments shown in figures 1, 2 and 5 show that the annular bonding surfaces may have different shapes.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein all portions of the annular bonding surface lie in the same plane, to ensure that the radome film and the annular bonding surface are in close contact in order to form a more robust radome assembly.
Claim 5: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano also discloses (annotated fig. 4) “wherein the first portion (P1) is continuous and substantially planar (see continuous and substantially planar radome 5 shown in fig. 3)”.
Claim 6: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano also discloses (see annotated fig. 4 and fig. 3) “comprising a pillar (foam spacer 6) which extends outwardly (annotated fig. 4, direction O) beyond the annular bonding surface (BS), with which the radome film (5) is in contact”.
Claim 7: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 6.
Numano also discloses “wherein the pillar (fig. 3, dielectric spacer 6) is located centrally with respect to the annular bonding surface (annotated fig. 4, BS)”.
Claim 8: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 6.
Numano also discloses “wherein the pillar comprises a foam material (fig. 3, dielectric spacer 6. ¶4; “a spacer 6 of high-foam material”)”.
Claim 10: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano discloses “wherein the annular bonding surface (annotated fig. 4, BS) is located at an upwardmost portion of the mounting ring (fig. 4, 1)”.
Claim 11: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano discloses “whereby the mounting ring (fig. 4, 1) comprises an annular wall (annotated fig. 4, AW) on which the annular bonding surface (annotated fig. 4, BS) is formed”.
Claim 14: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano also discloses “wherein the annular enclosing element (fig. 4, ring 7) comprises an annular member (annotated fig. 4, AM) which is positionable over at least some of the second portion (P2)”.
Claim 15: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Numano also discloses “wherein the annular member (annotated fig. 4, AM) is positionable over a periphery of the radome film (fig. 4, 7)”.
Claim 16: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Numano also discloses “wherein an inner face of the annular member (annotated fig. 4, AM) is complementarily-shaped with an outer face of the mounting ring (fig. 4, 1)”.
Claim 17: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Numano discloses “wherein at least some of the second portion (P2) is clamped (the second portion is held firmly in contact, so can therefore be considered to be clamped) between the mounting ring (1) and the annular member (AM)”.
Claim 21: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the annular enclosing element (fig. 4, 7) comprises a cured or set annular member”.
However, Numano does disclose (¶7) that a silicone resin is injected around the entire circumference of the joint between the frame 1 (mounting ring) and the radome 5. The resin is then left to harden (i.e., cure or set) and has an annular shape which follows the contour of the assembly shown in fig. 3. After the resin has hardened, the annular enclosing element (ring 7) is fitted.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein the annular enclosing element comprises a set annular member, in order to seal the antenna so that it is suitable for outdoor use (¶4).
Claim 22: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 21.
Numano discloses “wherein the annular enclosing element comprises a cured sealant (Numano discloses in ¶7 that a silicone resin is injected between the frame 1 and radome 5, and the silicone resin is then left to harden (i.e., cure). As disclosed in ¶13, the silicone resin serves as a sealant)”.
Claim 23: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 21.
Numano, in the embodiment of fig. 4, does not explicitly disclose “wherein the mounting ring comprises an annular recess radially outwardly of the annular bonding surface which receives at least some of the second portion (P2) and the cured or set annular member”.
However, Numano, in the embodiment of fig. 1, discloses “wherein the mounting ring (1) comprises an annular recess (SA, SB) radially outwardly of the annular bonding surface (annotated fig. 1, BS) which receives a portion of the layer of the radome film (5) and the cured or set annular member” (as disclosed in ¶7, silicone resin is injected around the entire circumference of the joint between the frame 1 (mounting ring) and the radome 5, and therefore the annular recess (SA, SB) will include a cured or set annular member).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein the mounting ring comprises an annular recess radially outwardly of the annular bonding surface which receives at least some of the second portion and the cured or set annular member, so that the radome film and the mounting ring can be easily joined together (¶13).
Claim 24: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 23.
Numano, in the embodiment of fig. 4, does not explicitly disclose “wherein a periphery of the radome film is received in the annular recess”.
However, Numano, in the embodiment of fig. 1, discloses “wherein a periphery of the radome film (5) is received in the annular recess (SA, SB)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein the periphery of the layer of radome film is received in the annular recess, so that the radome film and the frame (mounting ring) can be reliably bonded together and any expansion/contraction of the radome assembly can be accommodated (¶11).
Claim 25: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 21.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “comprising a continuous smooth profile between the cured or set annular member and an outer surface of the mounting ring”.
However, Numano does disclose (¶7) that a silicone resin is injected around the entire circumference of the joint between the frame 1 (mounting ring) and the radome 5. The resin is then left to harden (i.e., cure or set). Numano also discloses (¶13) that the silicone resin serves as a sealant “so as to have uniform coating thickness over the entire periphery of the antenna”. The silicone resin therefore has a smooth and continuous annular shape which follows the contour of the assembly shown in fig. 3.
Numano therefore teaches “comprising a continuous smooth profile between the cured or set annular member (not shown) and an outer surface of the mounting ring (fig. 4, 1)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprising a continuous smooth profile between the cured or set annular member and an outer surface of the mounting ring, such that the joint between the radome film and the periphery of the mounting ring can be sealed with a sealant that is resistant to low and high temperatures and suitable for outdoor use (¶4).
Claim 26: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 21.
Numano discloses “comprising a continuous smooth profile between the cured or set annular member and the second portion (P2) of the radome film bonded to the annular bonding surface (BS)”.
Claim 32: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the radome film is flexible”.
Suzuki teaches a radome (fig. 4, 47) that is made of a material such as AES resin (¶2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an AES resin is flexible.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Suzuki to the radome assembly of Numano in view of Suzuki, wherein the radome film is flexible. Doing so allows for a radome film with excellent weather resistance and less susceptible to UV degradation.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numano in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Moy et al. (US 2024/0008612 – of record; hereinafter Moy).
Claim 18: the modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 14.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the annular member is releasably attached”.
The annular member (fig. 4, ring 7) disclosed in Numano is made of rubber and is utilized to protect the outer periphery of the antenna (¶7).
Moy teaches a protective enclosure for an antenna that allows for easy installation and uninstallation of the antenna while reducing the risk of damage to the antenna, and which enables secure transport of the antenna (¶4). The protective enclosure includes guard elements (fig. 2, 30) which are attached to the exterior of the protective enclosure. The guard elements can be made of rubber (¶39) and can be omitted or be removable (¶5, lines 11-12).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the annular member can be releasably attached in order to replace it, particularly as the radome assembly is designed for outdoor use.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Moy to the radome assembly of Numano in view of Suzuki wherein the annular member is releasably attached. Doing so allows for the annular member to be easily replaced (¶51).
Claim 19: The modified Numano discloses a radome assembly as claimed in claim 18.
Numano does not explicitly disclose “wherein the annular member is releasably attached to the mounting ring”.
Moy teaches a protective enclosure for an antenna that allows for easy installation and uninstallation of the antenna while reducing the risk of damage to the antenna, and which enables secure transport of the antenna (¶4). The protective enclosure includes guard elements (fig. 2, 30) which are attached to the exterior of the protective enclosure. The guard elements can be made of rubber (¶39) and can be omitted or be removable (¶5, lines 11-12).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the annular member can be releasably attached to the mounting ring in order to replace the annular member, particularly as the radome assembly is designed for outdoor use.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Moy to the radome assembly of Numano in view of Suzuki wherein the annular member is releasably attached to the mounting ring. Doing so allows for the annular member to be easily replaced (¶51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Numano teaches some elements of the claimed invention, but does not teach, or suggest, “wherein the annular bonding surface is formed on a radially innermost portion of an upper surface of the annular wall”.
Regarding dependent claim 13, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the mounting ring comprises an outer surface which includes a convexly curved portion radially outwardly of the annular bonding surface”.
Numano is cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention, including a mounting ring (fig. 1, 1) comprising a convexly curved portion and an annular bonding surface (annotated figs. 1 and 4, BS). However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 20, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of the annular enclosing element (figs. 1 and 4, 7) comprises a ring of tape secured to the periphery of the radome fabric or film and to a portion of the mounting ring located radially outward of the periphery of the radome fabric or film”.
Numano is cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention, including an annular enclosing element (figs. 1 and 4, 7), radome film (figs. 1 and 4, 5), and a mounting ring (figs. 1 and 4, 1) located at the periphery of the radome fabric or film. However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights