DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2022-07-12. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2022-0085963 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments set forth in the Remarks filed 2/19/2026 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the amended language raises new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 4-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each of the inner surfaces constituting the second inner surface" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier in the claim it is established: “the second inner surface is defined as an inner surface of the chamber part other than the first inner surface and includes an inner surface of a chamber upper portion that is opposite to the first inner surface”. However, in referring to “each”, the language of lines 9-10 appears to suggest that “the second inner surface” includes multiple inner surfaces, whereas only one is previously established. It is not clear if the reference to “each” requires more than one inner surface. It is suggested lines 4-5 be amended to read: “…defined as at least one inner surface…”
Claims 2, 4-15, and 17-19 depend on claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 4 introduces at line 1 “an imaginary line, which connects the radar and the plurality of reflector parts”, this line forming a “preset angle” at the point of radar installation, but later indicates that the plurality of reflector parts “has different preset angles”. The claim is indefinite because it requires the plurality of reflector parts to be on the same imaginary line, which contradicts the requirement of different angles. The scope is indefinite and revision is required. It appears that multiple imaginary lines should be established rather than an imaginary line that connects the plurality of reflector parts. Similarly, claim 6 which depends on claim 4 references “a distance from the radar to the plurality of reflector parts” is defined as a preset distance, but then requires different preset distances for “the plurality of reflector parts” and is likewise indefinite. Claims 5-8 depend on claim 4 and/or 6 and are indefinite by their dependency. It is apparent that revision to at least claims 5 and and 7 would in turn be necessitated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berges discloses a radar echo simulator including concave reflectors installed on surfaces of a chamber part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights