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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-29 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 18-23, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523).
Regarding claim 1, Ziolkowski et al. teach a radome (col. 1, lines 50-55) comprising air-filled microspheres which produce a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (low dielectric, low loss filler) integrated into a matrix (col. 2, lines 17-25, col. 4, lines 23-35), the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) reducing overall dielectric constant (col. 2, lines 17-25, col. 4, lines 23-35).
Ziolkowski et al. do not disclose a low dielectric, low loss radome whereby the radome has a dielectric constant less than 2.5 through a thickness of the radome. However, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the radome comprises air filled microspheres which is a dielectric constant reducing agent. The microspheres produce skin layers with a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microspheres produce a low dielectric, low loss radome with a dielectric constant less than 2.5 through a thickness of the radome because the microspheres are dielectric constant reducing agents and aim to provide a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 4, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the radome comprising first and second layers and a core between the first and second layers (col. 2, lines 10-15), wherein the first and second layers comprise the air-filled microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler integrated into the matrix) (col. 2, lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 18, Ziolkowski et al. do not disclose wherein the radome is configured to have a dielectric constant of about 2 or less at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 90 GHz; and/or a dielectric constant of about 1.85 or less at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 50 GHz; and/or a dielectric constant of about 1.7 or less at frequencies from about 24 GHz to about 40 GHz. However, Ziolkowski et al. do teach wherein the radome comprises air filled microspheres which is a dielectric constant reducing agent. The microspheres produce skin layers with a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in dielectric constant involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the dielectric constant of the radome because the microspheres are dielectric constant reducing agents and aim to provide a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (the low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons or bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 21, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 22, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 23, Ziolkowski et al. teach a material for a radome (col. 1, lines 50-55) comprising air-filled microspheres which produce a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (low dielectric, low loss filler) integrated into a matrix (col. 2, lines 17-25, col. 4, lines 23-35), the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) reducing overall dielectric constant (col. 2, lines 17-25, col. 4, lines 23-35).
Ziolkowski et al. do not disclose a low dielectric, low loss radome whereby the material has a dielectric constant less than 2.5 through a thickness of the material. However, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the material comprises air filled microspheres which is a dielectric constant reducing agent. The microspheres produce skin layers with a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microspheres produce a material for a low dielectric, low loss radome, wherein the material has a dielectric constant less than 2.5 through a thickness of the material because the microspheres are dielectric constant reducing agents and aim to provide a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein microspheres (the low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons or bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 28, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 29, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Harrison et al. (US Patent No. 6,068,915).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome further comprises fibers, and wherein the fibers and the low dielectric constant, low loss filler is integrated into the matrix such that the radome has a homogenous and/or unitary structure that is thermoformable prior to cure. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising fibers, microballoons and resin (col. 2, lines 55-65), such that the material has a homogenous structure that is thermoformable prior to cure (col. 2, lines 10-35, 55-65), wherein the homogenous structure is a single layer structure (col. 2, lines 10-35, 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the matrix of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 5, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) are integrated into the first and second layers and reduce the overall dielectric constant of the radome (col. 2, lines 18-24, col. 4, lines 23-35), whereby the first and second layers each have a dielectric constant between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 3.6 or less (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the first and second layers further comprise fibers integrated into the first and second layers for reinforcement and mechanical strength. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising fibers, microballoons and resin (col. 2, lines 55-65), wherein the fibers provide a mechanical network for the material (col. 2, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the first and second layers of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 8, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome comprises a partially cured B-stage material configured to be formed or shaped in three dimensions and fully cured; and/or a B-staged epoxy resin including fabric and/or fibers embedded therein. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising microballoons, epoxy resin and fibers embedded therein (col. 2, lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 14, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome further comprises fibers, and wherein the fibers and the low dielectric constant, low loss filler is integrated into the matrix such that the radome does not have outer and inner skin laeyrs disposed on opposite sides of a core that define a three-layer A-sandwich structure. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising fibers, microballoons and resin (col. 2, lines 55-65), and wherein the fibers and the microballoons is integrated into the matrix such that the material does not have outer and inner skin laeyrs disposed on opposite sides of a core that define a three-layer A-sandwich structure (col. 2, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the matrix of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 16, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome further comprises fibers within the matrix for reinforcement and mechanical strength. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising fibers, microballoons and resin (col. 2, lines 55-65), wherein the fibers provide a mechanical network for the material (col. 2, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the matrix of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Purinton (US Patent No. 6,107,976).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the core comprises low dielectric constant, low loss filler within a thermoset matrix and having a dielectric constant of about 1.7 or less; or a thermoplastic honeycomb core having a dielectric constant of about 1.03 or less. However, Purinton teaches a radome (col. 2, lines 65-67) comprising first and second layers and a core between the first and second layers (col. 4, lines 28-40), wherein the core comprises a thermoplastic honeycomb core (col. 8, lines 15-25, col. 11, lines 8-11) having a dielectric constant of less than 1.2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 1.03 or less (col. 11, lines 8-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core of Purinton in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to resist water migration (Purinton, col. 10, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 7, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the core comprises a thermoset core such that the radome is thermoformed and cured; or the core comprises a thermoplastic foam core such that the radome is thermoformable. However, Purinton teaches a radome (col. 2, lines 65-67) comprising first and second layers and a core between the first and second layers (col. 4, lines 28-40), wherein the core comprises a thermoplastic foam core (col. 4, lines 28-40, col. 5, lines 9-10, 40-50).) such that the radome is thermoformable (col. 5, lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core of Purinton in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide impact resistance (Purinton, col. 3, lines 4-7, col. 4, lines 63-65).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Oosterbosch et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0327595).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the radome comprises first and second layers and a core between the first and second layers (col. 2, lines 10-15), wherein the first and second layers comprise microballoons (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) integrated into a matrix (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the first and second thermoplastic layers and a thermoplastic core between the first and second thermoplastic layers, whereby the radome is thermoformable, wherein the thermoplastic core comprises a thermoplastic foam or a thermoplastic honeycomb. However, Oosterbosch et al. teach a radome wall (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising first and second thermoplastic layers (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraphs [0014], [0015]) and a thermoplastic core between the first and second thermoplastic layers (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 4, paragraph [0038]), whereby the radome wall is thermoformable (page 3, paragraphs [0023]-[0029]) wherein the thermoplastic core comprises a thermoplastic foam (page 4, paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermoplastic of Oosterbosch et al. in the first and second layers and core of Ziolkowski et al. in order to enable the manufacture an efficient broadband radome (Oosterbosch et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome is configured to be anisotropic and/or configured to reduce cross polarization differences between horizontal and vertical polarizations. However, Oosterbosch et al. teach a radome wall (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising first and second thermoplastic layers (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraphs [0014], [0015]) and a thermoplastic core between the first and second thermoplastic layers (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 4, paragraph [0038]), wherein the radome wall is configured to be anisotropic (page 3, paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radome of Ziolkowski et al. as anisotropic as that of Oosterbosch et al. in order to provide adequate elasticity to the radome (Oosterbosch et al., page 3, paragraph [0021]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Oosterbosch et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0327595), in further view of Harrison et al. (US Patent No. 6,068,915).
Ziolkowski et al. and Oosterbosch et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 10, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microballoons (low dielectric constant, low loss filler) is integrated into the first and second laeyrs and reduce the overall dielectric constant of the radome (col. 2, lines 18-24, col. 4, lines 23-35), whereby the first and second layers each have a dielectric constant between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 2.8 or less (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the first and second layers further comprise fibers integrated into the first and second layers for reinforcement and mechanical strength. However, Harrison et al. teach a structural material for various applications including aerospace applications (col. 1, lines 64-67, col. 2, lines 55-67) comprising fibers, microballoons and resin (col. 2, lines 55-65), wherein the fibers provide a mechanical network for the material (col. 2, lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Harrison et al. in the first and second layers of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a mechanical network for the material, reduce bulk density and/or impart electrical properties (Harrison et al., col. 2, lines 55-67).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Laubner et al. (US Patent Application No. 2007/0103375).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 11, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the matrix comprises an injection moldable resin and the radome is an injection molded radome configured to haven an overall dielectric constant within a range from about 1.5 to about 2.5 and an overall low loss tangent or dissipation factor (Df) less than about 0.01 at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or from about 20 GHz to about 50 GHz and/or from about 24 GHz to about 40 GHz. However, Laubner et al. teach a radome (page 3, paragraph [0041]) comprising an injection moldable plastic (page 3, paragraph [0041]) and the radome is an injection molded radome (page 3, paragraph [0041]) configured to have an overall dielectric constant between 1 and 5 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of about 1.5 to about 2.5 (page 3, paragraph [0041]) and a loss tangent between 0.01 and 0.001 which reads on Applicant’s claimed overall low loss tangent less than about 0.01 at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 90 GHz and/or from about 20 GHz to about 50 GHz and/or from about 24 GHz to about 40 GHz (page 3, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the injection moldable plastic of Laubner et al. and modify the dielectric constant and loss tangent of Ziolkowski et al. to that of Laubner et al. in order to have suitable microwave properties (Laubner et al., page 3, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the matrix comprises an injection moldable resin; and/or the matrix comprises polypropylene; and/or the matrix comprises a blend of polycarbonate and polybutylene terephthalate. However, Laubner et al. teach a radome (page 3, paragraph [0041]) comprising an injection moldable plastic (page 3, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the injection moldable plastic of Laubner et al. in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to have suitable microwave properties (Laubner et al., page 3, paragraph [0041]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Corodova et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0078016).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 13, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (the low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons or bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome further comprises fibers within the matrix, wherein the fibers comprise one or more of flame-resistant meta-aramid material, open weave polymeric fabric, high-density polyethylene, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, high density plastic fibers with a low dielectric constant, and/or high density polypropylene fibers. However, Corodova et al. teach a radome (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising a matrix material (page 4, paragraph [0041]) and fibers within the matrix (page 4, paragraph [0041]), wherein the fibers comprise ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 5, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Corodova et al. in the matrix of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide outstanding mechanical and impact properties (Corodova et al., page 3, paragraph [0031]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Qiang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0048776).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15, Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the radome comprises flame retardant applied to and/or integrated into at least a portion of the radome such that the radome has a UL94 flame rating of V0. However, Qiang et al. teach a composition for a radome (page 1, paragraph [0012]) comprising a flame retardant providing a V0 flame resistance (page 2, paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flame retardant of Qiang et al. in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a high flame retardancy (Qiang et al., page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Laubner et al. (US Patent Application No. 2007/0103375) and Corodova et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0078016).
Regarding claim 24, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (the low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons or bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the matrix comprises an injection moldable resin, polypropylene; and/or a blend of polycarbonate and polybutylene terephthalate. However, Laubner et al. teach a radome (page 3, paragraph [0041]) comprising an injection moldable plastic (page 3, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the injection moldable plastic of Laubner et al. in the radome of Ziolkowski et al. in order to have suitable microwave properties (Laubner et al., page 3, paragraph [0041]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Corodova et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0078016).
Regarding claim 24, Ziolkowski et al. teach wherein the microspheres (the low dielectric constant, low loss filler) comprises gas-filled microspheres (microballoons or bubbles) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises fibers within the matrix, wherein the fibers comprise one or more of flame-resistant meta-aramid material, open weave polymeric fabric, high-density polyethylene, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, high density plastic fibers with a low dielectric constant, and/or high density polypropylene fibers. However, Corodova et al. teach a radome (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising a matrix material (page 4, paragraph [0041]) and fibers within the matrix (page 4, paragraph [0041]), wherein the fibers comprise ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 5, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibers of Corodova et al. in the matrix of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide outstanding mechanical and impact properties (Corodova et al., page 3, paragraph [0031]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US Patent No. 7,420,523) in view of Qiang et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0048776).
Ziolkowski et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 25, Ziolkowski et al. do not disclose wherein the material is configured to have a dielectric constant of about 2 or less at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 90 GHz; and/or a dielectric constant of about 1.85 or less at frequencies from about 20 GHz to about 50 GHz; and/or a dielectric constant of about 1.7 or less at frequencies from about 24 GHz to about 40 GHz. However, Ziolkowski et al. do teach wherein the radome comprises air filled microspheres which is a dielectric constant reducing agent. The microspheres produce skin layers with a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in dielectric constant involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the dielectric constant of the radome because the microspheres are dielectric constant reducing agents and aim to provide a dielectric constant of between 1.3 to 3.0, more typically approximately 1.9 (col. 4, lines 23-35).
Ziolkowski et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises flame retardant applied to and/or integrated into at least a portion of the radome such that the radome has a UL94 flame rating of V0. However, Qiang et al. teach a composition for a radome (page 1, paragraph [0012]) comprising a flame retardant providing a V0 flame resistance (page 2, paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flame retardant of Qiang et al. in the material of Ziolkowski et al. in order to provide a high flame retardancy (Qiang et al., page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1/23/2026