Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/625,567

Test airborne accumulative pulse radar warning system

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Priority
Apr 27, 2023 — VI 1-2023-02843
Examiner
GREGORY, BERNARR E
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
VIETTEL GROUP
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
1309 granted / 1446 resolved
+38.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1465
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§103
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§102
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§112
64.3%
+24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1446 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 . Objection to the Drawings Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). This objection to the drawings may be overcome by: (1) obtaining an approved petition as set forth above, or, (2) stating in the written response to this office action that the drawings may be reproduced in black-and-white. Claim Interpretation 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. Claim 1 is 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. Overall, independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear due to the use of the word, “test” on line 1 of claim 1. Is the claim directed to claiming a “radar warning system” (line 1) or a device to “test” a “radar warning system”? On line 5 of claim 1, it is unclear if the “RAM” is positively recited. On line 6 of claim 1, it is unclear if the “hard disk” is positively recited. On line 7 of claim 1, it is unclear if the “CPU” is positively recited. On line 8 of claim 1, it is unclear if the “Screen” is positively recited. On line 5 of the claim, the acronym “RAM” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it is not defined in the claim. On line 7 of the claim, the acronym “CPU” is indefinite and unclear in context in that it is not defined in the claim. On line 8 of the claim, “15,6” is unclear in context. Perhaps, “15.6” was meant. Throughout claim 1, each and every mention of “software” is unclear in that the software is not described in either the claim or in the specification. Further, an algorithm for the software is not disclosed in the specification so that one of ordinary skill-in-the-art would understand what the uses of the word, “software” refer to in the claim 1. Lines 31-36 of claim 1 are indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the “SRF” hardware including the listed signals, without reciting the source of those signals, such as some sort of signal generator. On line 26 of claim 1, “Systemtarget” is unclear in context. Perhaps, this is a typographical error. On line 38 of claim 1, the claim language, “signals includes” is unclear in context due to the use of a plural noun with a singular for of the verb. Lines 37-42 of claim 1 are indefinite and unclear as to what is meant in context by the “Pulse Radar Warning System” hardware including the listed signals, without reciting the source of those signals, such as some sort of signal generator. On line 46 of claim 1, “SystemF” is unclear in context. Perhaps, this is a typographical error. Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Prior Art of General Interest The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cobb et al (‘982) is of general interest for the anechoic chamber and the “Layer of Radar Absorbent Material” 112. Each of Saunders et al (‘345), Drake et al (‘327), Buse et al (‘265), and Mills (‘107) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the disclosed chambers in a context of testing. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 10, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638573
RANGE RATE PREDICTION FOR AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS
2y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12640825
ANTENNA DETECTION METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631761
ENHANCED POSITIONING AFTER ERROR RECOVERY
2y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12625232
CALIBRATION PROCESS FOR VEHICULAR RADAR SENSING SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12625254
IMAGING METHOD USING GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR AND ASSOCIATED GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.6%)
2y 9m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1446 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month