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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “electromagnetic radiation” in claim 1 line 14, claim 6 line 13, claim 11 line 17, respectively. It appears that “the” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 5, 10, and 15-17 objected to because of the following informalities: “insertion loss” in claim 5 line 5, claim 10 line 4, claims 15-17 line 4, respectively. It appears that “the” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-20 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 limitations: 1) “dimensions” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of. And an antenna array is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 2) "the geometry" in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear “the geometry” represents “a geometry for the antenna array” defined in lines 6-7 or “a geometry of the radome” defined in lines 8-9. 3) “dimensions” in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of and whether or not the “dimensions” in line 9 is the same as the “dimensions” in line 7. And a radome is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 4) “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation for a cell” in line 14. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 14 relates to “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 12 because “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation” is determined “for each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” as indicated in lines 12-13. 5) “that cell” in line 15. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 12 and “a cell” in line 14 “that cell” represents. 6) “the distribution for a cell” in line 16. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 16 is the same as “that cell” mentioned in line 15 because “the distribution” is for “that cell” as mentioned in line 15. 7) “each cell” in line 16. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not this limitation represents the “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 12. 8) “each zone” in line 18. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each zone” mentioned in line 18 is within the “a set of zones” mentioned in line 16. 9) “a zone” in line 19. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not this limitation is a zone of “the set of zones” mentioned in line 16. And it is not clear whether or not the “a zone” in line 19 is the same as the “each zone” in line 18 because “the corresponding measure of insertion loss” is generated for the “each zone” in line 18. 10) “the zone” in line 20. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a zone” mentioned in lines 16 and 19 and the “each zone” mentioned in line 18 “the zone” in line 20 represents. 11) “a structural configuration” in lines 19-20. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “a structural configuration” in lines 19-20 is of. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-5, 12-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-5, 12-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claims 5, 15-17 recite the limitations: 1) “a zone” in claim 5 line 4 and claims 15-17 line 3, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not this limitation is one of the “a set of zones” mentioned in claim 1 line 16. And it is not clear what relationship between this limitation and the “a zone” mentioned in claim 1 lines 16 and 19 and the “each zone” mentioned in claim 1 line 18. 2) “the zone” in claim 5 line 5 and claims 15-17 line 4, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a zone” in claim 5 line 4 and claims 15-17 line 3 and the “a zone” mentioned in claim 1 lines 16 and 19 as well as the “each zone” mentioned in claim 1 line 18 “the zone” represents. 3) “calculate a measure for insertion loss for a flat panel sample of the zone” in claim 5 line 5 and claims 15-17 line 4, respectively. It is indefinite because as indicated in claim 1 line 18 “generate a measure of the insertion loss for each zone”, it is not clear: i) whether or not the “a measure of the insertion loss for each zone” in claim 1 line 18 and the “a measure for insertion loss for a flat panel sample of the zone” in claim 5 line 5 and claims 15-17 line 4 are the same. ii) what relationship is between the “a measure of the insertion loss for each zone” in claim 1 line 18 and the “a measure for insertion loss for a flat panel sample of the zone” in claim 5 line 5 and claims 15-17 line 4. iii) how many “flat panel sample” exist in a “zone”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “dimensions” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of. And an antenna array is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 2) "the geometry" in line 8. It is indefinite because it is not clear “the geometry” represents “a geometry for the antenna array” defined in lines 5-6 or “a geometry of the radome” defined in lines 7-8. 3) “dimensions” in line 8. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of and whether or not the “dimensions” in line 8 is the same as the “dimensions” in line 6. And a radome is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 4) “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation for a cell” in line 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 13 relates to “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 11 because “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation” is determined “for each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” as indicated in lines 11-12. 5) “that cell” in lines 13-14. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 11 and “a cell” in line 13 “that cell” represents. 6) “the distribution for a cell” in line 15. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 15 is the same as “that cell” mentioned in lines 13-14 because “the distribution” is for “that cell” as mentioned in lines 13-14. 7) “each cell” in line 15. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not this limitation represents the “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 11. 8) “each zone” in line 17. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each zone” mentioned in line 17 is within the “a set of zones” mentioned in line 15. 9) “a zone” in line 18. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is a zone of “the set of zones” mentioned in line 15. And it is not clear whether or not the “a zone” in line 18 is the same as the “each zone” in line 17 because “the corresponding measure of insertion loss” is generated for the “each zone” in line 17. 10) “the zone” in line 19. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a zone” mentioned in lines 15 and 18 and “each zone” mentioned in line 17 “the zone” in line 19 represents. 11) “a structural configuration” in lines 18-19. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “a structural configuration” in lines 18-19 is of. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 7-10, 18-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6 because each of dependent claims 7-10, 18-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitations: 1) “a zone” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a zone” in line 3 is one of the “a set of zones” mentioned in claim 6 line 15. And it is not clear what relationship between the “a zone” in line 3 and “a zone” mentioned in claim 6 lines 15 and 18 and “each zone” mentioned in claim 6 line 17. 2) “the zone” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a zone” in line 3 and “a zone” mentioned in claim 6 lines 15 and 18 as well as “each zone” mentioned in claim 6 line 17 “the zone” in line 4 represents. 3) “calculating a measure for insertion loss for the zone” in line 4. It is indefinite because as indicated in claim 6 line 17 “generating a measure of the insertion loss for each zone”, it is not clear: i) whether or not the “a measure of the insertion loss for each zone” in claim 6 line 17 and the “a measure for insertion loss for the zone” in line 4 are the same; ii) what relationship between the “a measure of the insertion loss for each zone” in claim 6 line 17 and the “a measure for insertion loss for the zone” in line 4. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 11 recites the limitations: 1) “dimensions” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of. And an antenna array is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 2) "the geometry" in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear “the geometry” represents “a geometry for the antenna array” defined in lines 6-7 or “a geometry of the radome” defined in lines 8-9. 3) “dimensions” in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “dimensions” is of and whether or not the “dimensions” in line 9 is the same as the “dimensions” in line 7. And a radome is always in 3-dimensions in geometry. 4) “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation for a cell” in line 17. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 17 relates to “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 15 because “the angles of incidence of electromagnetic radiation” is determined “for each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” as indicated in lines 15-16. 5) “that cell” in line 18. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 15 and “a cell” in line 17 “that cell” represents. 6) “the distribution for a cell” in line 19. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a cell” in line 19 is the same as “that cell” mentioned in line 18 because “the distribution” is for “that cell” as mentioned in line 18. 7) “each cell” in line 19. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not this limitation represents the “each cell in the first set of discrete geometric and topological cells” mentioned in line 15. 8) “each zone” in line 21. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each zone” mentioned in line 21 is within the “a set of zones” mentioned in line 19. 9) “a zone” in line 22. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is a zone of “the set of zones” mentioned in line 19. And it is not clear whether or not the “a zone” in line 22 is the same as the “each zone” in line 21 because “the corresponding measure of insertion loss” is generated for the “each zone” in line 21. 10) “the zone” in line 23. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a zone” mentioned in lines 19 and 22 and “each zone” mentioned in line 21 “the zone” in line 23 represents. 11) “a structural configuration” in lines 22-23. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “a structural configuration” in lines 22-23 is of. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648