The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the replacement paragraph starting at page 2, line 27, 5th line therein; in the replacement paragraph starting at page 4, line 4, 5th line therein; in the replacement paragraph starting at page 5, line 2, last line therein: note that the term “environement” should be rewritten as --environment--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate spelling. Page 3 of the original specification, lines 8 & 9 and page 5 of the original, line 20, it is noted that the respective recitation of “In this case” should be rewritten as --Therefore--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 4 of the original specification, lines 19 & 20 and page 5 of the original specification, lines 16, 30, note that the recitation of “in this case” should be deleted, respectively at these instances as being unnecessary. Page 5 of the original specification, line 13 and page 6 of the original specification, line 1, note that the respective pronouns “its” (i.e. page 5, line 13) and “This” (i.e. page 6) should be rewritten to indicate the corresponding intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 5 of the original specification, lines 24 & 25, note that the recitation of “materials having the same parameters. The two foams can” should be rewritten as --materials. The foam filling the waveguides and the foam forming the radomes can-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 6 of the original specification, lines 20, 21 and in the replacement paragraph starting at page 8, line 2, 7th, 8th lines therein, note that it is still unclear as to what would characterize “an antenna level” and “a distribution level”, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 6 of the original specification, line 30, note that the term “there” is still vague in meaning as to what such a term is intended to convey and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 7 of the original specification, line 4 and page 9 of the original specification, line 1, note that it is unclear as to what would characterize the terminology “structuring”, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed. In the replacement paragraph starting at page 8, line 2, third line therein, note that the recitation of “in turn” should be deleted as being unnecessary. Page 8 of the original specification, line 28, note that the term “has” should be rewritten as --therefore the foam layer 21 and the foam 20 have-- for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structuring (i.e. claim 18) still must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as the specification does not contain a written description of the claimed invention, in that the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) has possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
In claim 18, note that the added limitation of “surface features” which are “configured to improve adherence of the foam and/or to promote planar distribution of the foam” do not appear to find support in the original disclosure and thus has been treated as “new matter”.
However, if applicant does not believe the above issues are “new matter”, then an appropriate explanation is required including pointing out where support for the limitation(s) in question can be explicitly found in the original specification.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant contends that the obviousness combination of references (i.e. Topak in view of Ohlsson) is insufficient to meet at least the limitations of independent claim 10. In particular, applicant contends that while Topak discloses foam filling the waveguides, Topak does not disclose radomes formed of foam. Moreover, applicant contends that Ohlsson does not make up for the deficiencies in Topak, when combined with Topak in the obviousness combination. In particular, applicant contends that the radomes in Ohlsson are made of plastic or fluoroplastic material and not foam.
Upon further consideration, the examiner acknowledges that in view of applicant’s contentions, the obviousness combination is indeed deficient in meeting the limitations of independent claim 10, and thus the grounds of rejection based on prior art have now been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on indefiniteness under 35 USC 112, paragraph (b), applicant contends that in view of appropriate amendments to the claims, the indefiniteness rejections have now been overcome.
Upon further consideration, the examiner acknowledges that the issues of indefiniteness have indeed been overcome by applicant’s amendments and thus the grounds of rejection based on indefiniteness has been withdrawn. However, it should be noted that in view of the amendments to claim 18, applicant has introduced a “new matter” issue to that claim, as set forth in the above new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112, paragraph (a). Accordingly, applicant is required to address this issue in any potential response to this Office action.
Regarding to the objection to the drawings, as to whether any “structuring” has been depicted in the drawings, applicant contends that the drawing need not depict the “structuring” features, since such features are not necessary for understanding the invention.
Upon further consideration, the examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s contention, especially since this “structuring” appears directed a physical feature or structure, where such physical feature or structure needs to be depicted to convey this aspect of the invention for clarity and understanding of this aspect of the invention. Accordingly, the drawing objection has been sustained and applicant is required to address this issue in any potential response to this Office action.
Regarding the objections to the specification, applicant contends that appropriate amendments to the specification which satisfactorily address the issues raised by the examiner.
Upon further consideration, the examiner acknowledges that a majority of the objections to have specification have indeed been addressed to the examiner’s satisfaction. However, certain outstanding objections to the specification remain, as set forth in the above objection. Accordingly, applicant is required to address these outstanding objections in any potential response to this Office action.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-17 are allowable over the prior art of record.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571) 272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee