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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/03/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 18-19 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/03/2026 with respect to independent claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has been applied to amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MONSEF et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0131689 A1; hereinafter Monsef) in view of Shipley et al. (Patent NO. US 6,219,009 B1; hereinafter Shipley).
Regarding Claim 1, Monsef teaches an electromagnetic stirrer (electromagnetic stirrer 6 in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]) comprising:
a mast (See mast in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0053]); and
at least one vane (vane 61/62/63 in Fig. 1 and fig. below; See [0053]) presenting a surface reflecting radio and/or microwave waves (surface of 61/62/63 reflects microwave in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0010]-[0021], [0041], [0046]-[0060]),
the at least one vane presenting at least two non-coplanar regions (each vane 61/62/63 has two regions that are coplanar in Fig. 1 and Fig. below);
the mast presenting a vane attachment zone (the zone of mast where 61/62/63 are attached is vane attachment zone in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]-[0060]),
the at least one vane being attached to the vane attachment zone (the zone of mast where 61/62/63 are attached to mast is vane attachment zone in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]-[0060]);
PNG
media_image1.png
840
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Monsef is silent about at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable by a gas.
Shipley teaches at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable by a gas (vane 120 is inflatable by gas in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; See Col. 4, Lines 30-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable by a gas, as taught by Shipley in order to achieve improved energy directing structure and assemblies such as antenna reflector architectures (Shipley; Col. 1, Lines 15-25).
Regarding Claim 2, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1. Monsef further teaches wherein the at least one vane is inflatable (vane 62/63 is inflatable in 160 in Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 3, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 2. Monsef further teaches further comprising a removable attachment to attach the at least one vane to the vane attachment zone (removable attachment 155/156 to attach vane 160 to zone 156 in fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 4, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 3. Monsef is silent about wherein the removable attachment comprises a zipper.
Shipley teaches wherein the removable attachment comprises a zipper (121 are interpreted as zipper to make removable attachment of vanes 120 in Fig. 4; See Col. 4, Lines 1-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using he removable attachment comprises a zipper, as taught by Shipley in order to achieve improved energy directing structure and assemblies such as antenna reflector architectures (Shipley; Col. 1, Lines 15-25).
Regarding Claim 5, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 2. Monsef further teaches wherein the at least one vane presents a side edge (See side edge of vane 160 in Fig. 8B), the at least one vane being attached along its side edge to the vane attachment zone (See side edge of vane 160 is attached to zone 152 in fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 7, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 2. Monsef wherein the at least one inflatable vane presents at least one region having a Conical-shaped cross-section (See conical shaped cross section of vanes 160 in fig. 8B), but Monsef in view of Tam is silent about C-shaped cross-section.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use C-shaped cross-section since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), in order to accommodate inside chamber.
Regarding Claim 8, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 2. Monsef further teaches wherein the at least one vane includes an inflatable framework (See vanes 160 with inflatable framework 155/151/153/152 in Fig. 8B) and at least one layer reflecting radio and/or microwave electromagnetic waves (See [0058]), the at least one layer being carried by the inflatable framework (inflatable framework 155/151/153/152 is layer in Fig. 8B.
Monsef is silent about inflatable vane.
Shipley teaches inflatable vane (vane 12 is inflatable in Fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using inflatable vane, as taught by Shipley in order to achieve efficient radiation (Shipley; Col. 2, Lines 5-20).
Regarding Claim 9, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 8. Monsef further teaches wherein the inflatable framework includes at least two inflatable peripheral uprights and at least one inflatable crosspiece connecting the inflatable peripheral uprights (See all inflatable framework 155/151/153/152 in peripheral uprights connecting the inflatable peripheral uprights in Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 10, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1. Monsef further teaches wherein the mast is inflatable (mast 151 is removable, therefore inflatable in Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 11, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 10. Tam teaches wherein the mast is cylindrical with a vertical axis (See mast is cylindrical in Fig. 1), the vane attachment zone extending along a generatrix of the mast (attachment zone is extending in upper surface of mast where vanes 62/63 are connected to mast in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches an electromagnetic measuring and/or test system including:
a reverberation chamber (Monsef’s reverberation chamber 1 in fig. 1; See [0040]);
a transmitter of radio and/or microwave electromagnetic waves configured to be placed in the reverberation chamber (Monsef’s reverberation chamber 1 has transmitter 2 of radio EM in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0041]); and
the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1, configured to be placed in the reverberation chamber (electromagnetic stirrer 6 is in reverberation chamber 1 in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic measuring and/or test system according to claim 13. Monsef further teaches further comprising
an electromagnetic wave receiver (absorber 5,6 are EM receiver in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0044]) configured to be placed in a vicinity of an equipment placed in the reverberation chamber (See [0040]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 18, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1. Monsef is silent about wherein the gas is air.
Shipley teaches wherein the gas is air (vane 120 is inflatable by gas and gas is air in Fig. 3; See Col. 4, Lines 30-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using air as gas, as taught by Shipley in order to achieve improved energy directing structure and assemblies such as antenna reflector architectures (Shipley; Col. 1, Lines 15-25).
Regarding Claim 19, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1. Monsef is silent about wherein the gas is compressed air.
Shipley teaches wherein the gas is compressed air (vane 120 is inflatable by compressed gas and gas is air in Fig. 3; See Col. 4, Lines 30-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using the gas is compressed air, as taught by Shipley in order to achieve improved energy directing structure and assemblies such as antenna reflector architectures (Shipley; Col. 1, Lines 15-25).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsef in view of Shipley further in view of Toni et al. (Pub NO. EP 3876246 A1; hereinafter Toni; translation attached).
Regarding Claim 6, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 2. Tam further teaches including a plurality of inflatable vanes (See plurality of inflatable vanes in Fig. 3a-Fig. 3c), the vane attachment zone being configured to interchangeably accommodate several vanes among the plurality of inflatable vanes (See vane attachment zone 20/30 accommodates plurality of vanes 15 in fig. 4), each vane of the several vanes being configured to be mounted as a replacement for another vane of the several vanes on the vane attachment zone (as vanes are attached by screw therefore it can be replaced in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; See Col. 3, Lines 15-40).
Monsef in view of Shipley is silent about vanes presenting different dimensions.
Toni teaches vanes presenting different dimensions (plurality of different dimension vanes 2, 3, 4 in Fig. 2a).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef and Shipley by using vanes presenting different dimensions, as taught by Toni in order to achieve efficient protection (Toni; [0028]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsef in view of Shipley further in view of JIN et al. (Pub NO. CN 113625068 A; hereinafter Jin; translation attached).
Regarding Claim 12, Monsef in view of Shipley teaches the electromagnetic stirrer according to claim 1. Monsef in view of Tamis silent about further comprising a turntable, the mast carrying the at least one vane being configured to be mounted on the turntable to be driven in rotation about a vertical axis by the turntable.
Jin teaches further comprising a turntable, the mast carrying the at least one vane being configured to be mounted on the turntable to be driven in rotation about a vertical axis by the turntable (See [0003]-[0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef and Shipley by using a turntable, the mast carrying the at least one vane being configured to be mounted on the turntable to be driven in rotation about a vertical axis by the turntable, as taught by Jin in order to achieve efficient testing (Jin; [0002]).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsef in view of Tam et al. (Patent NO. US 9,231,300 B1; hereinafter Tam).
Regarding Claim 15, Monsef teaches a mounting method to mount an electromagnetic stirrer (electromagnetic stirrer 6 in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]), comprising:
providing a mast (See mast in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0053]) and at least one vane (vane 61/62/63 in Fig. 1 and fig. below; See [0053]) presenting a surface reflecting radio and/or microwave waves (surface of 61/62/63 reflects microwave in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]-[0060]),
the at least one vane presenting at least two non-coplanar regions (each vane 61/62/63 has two regions that are coplanar in Fig. 1 and Fig. below),
the mast presenting a vane attachment zone (the zone of mast where 61/62/63 are attached is vane attachment zone in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]-[0060]),
the at least one vane being attached to the vane attachment zone (the zone of mast where 61/62/63 are attached to mast is vane attachment zone in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0046]-[0060]),
PNG
media_image1.png
840
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Monsef is silent about at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable, the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being initially deflated; and inflating the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane.
Tam teaches at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable (vane 15a is inflatable in Fig. 3a-Fig. 3c), the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being initially deflated (See the deflated vane in Fig. 3a-Fig. 3c); and inflating the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane (See vanes are inflated in Fig. 3a-Fig. 3c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef by using at least a part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being inflatable, the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane being initially deflated; and inflating the inflatable part of the mast and/or of the at least one vane, as taught by Tam in order to achieve efficient radiation (Tam; Col. 2, Lines 5-20).
Regarding Claim 16, Monsef in view of Tam teaches the method according to claim 15. Tam further teaches wherein the mast and/or the at least one vane is inflatable (See vanes 15a are inflated from Fig. 3c to Fig. 3a),
providing a mast and at least one vane including providing the mast and/or the at least one vane in a deflated and disassembled configuration (vanes 15a are deflated in Fig. 3C),
the method comprising assembling the at least one vane to the mast prior to inflation of the mast and/or the at least one vane (assembling vanes 15a in Fig. 3b from Fig. 3c), and
inflating the mast and/or the at least one vane after assembling the at least one vane to the mast (inflating vanes 15a in Fig. 3a after assembling in Fig. 3b).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsef in view of Tam further in view of Jin.
Regarding Claim 17, Monsef in view of Tam teaches an electromagnetic measuring and/or test method. Monsef further teaches comprising:
providing a reverberation chamber (reverberation chamber 1 in fig. 1; See [0040]): implementing the mounting method according to claim 15, and
arranging the electromagnetic stirrer in the reverberation chamber (arranging stirrer 6 in reverberation chamber 1 in Fig. 1);
arranging a transmitter in the reverberation chamber (reverberation chamber 1 has transmitter 2 of radio EM in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0041]),
transmitting electromagnetic radio waves and/or microwaves from the transmitter into the reverberation chamber ( transmitter 2 transmits radio EM in reverberation chamber 1 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0041]);
placing a receiver in the reverberation chamber in a vicinity of an equipment to be tested in the reverberation chamber (absorber 5 is EM receiver in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0044]) and measuring an electromagnetic field received by the receiver and/or testing an equipment in operation in the reverberation chamber (See [0040]-[0060]); and
Monsef in view of Tam is silent about rotating the electromagnetic stirrer about an axis of rotation between two successive measurements of the electromagnetic field received by the receiver or between two successive tests of the equipment in operation.
Jin teaches further rotating the electromagnetic stirrer about an axis of rotation between two successive measurements of the electromagnetic field received by the receiver or between two successive tests of the equipment in operation (See [0003]-[0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Monsef and Tam by rotating the electromagnetic stirrer about an axis of rotation between two successive measurements of the electromagnetic field received by the receiver or between two successive tests of the equipment in operation, as taught by Jin in order to achieve efficient testing (Jin; [0002]).
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday Friday 8am-5pm est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rodak Lee can be reached on 571 -270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/
Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858