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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that unity of invention does exist between Groups I - III because there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature that defines the contribution which each of the groups, taken as a whole, makes over the prior art; and that a search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office
This is not found persuasive because Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the system of claim 1, as brought about by the method of Group II, or as used in the method of Group III, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art as detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
The Examiner notes burdensome search standard does not apply to restrictions based on Unity of Invention as provided for in 37 CFR 1.475.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/30/26.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the use of “and/or” in claim 1 which makes at least one of the limitations, and therein the claims that further attempt to limit that limitation, optional. For examination and compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner is choosing to interpret using the “and” language of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “zones are” appears that it should be “zone is” (line 2, 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 and claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 states “each of the at least one even coaxial elliptical zone is partially decoated;” but claim 2 states “and the at least one even coaxial elliptical zones are not decoated;” so claim 2 is rejected as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claim 1 states “each of the at least one odd coaxial elliptical zone is partially decoated;” but claim 5 states “and the at least one odd coaxial elliptical zone is not decoated;” so claim 5 is rejected as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (WO 90/07199) in view of Milne (GB 2121612 A) and Ngyuen et al (US 2010/0066639 A1) et al.
Wright teaches a system (e.g., focusing device for a microwave antenna) comprising a dielectric substrate (e.g., window pane (i.e., glazing panel)), and a coating system disposed on the dielectric substrate, wherein the coating system (e.g., low emissivity coating) comprises a Fresnel zone plate lens comprising N coaxial elliptical zones (i.e., circular or elliptical rings), n being a positive integer and numbered from 1 to N, wherein N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, wherein the coaxial elliptical zones include at least one odd coaxial elliptical zone and at least one even coaxial elliptical zone; wherein the coaxial elliptical zones are concentric circular zones and used to absorb, reflect or transmit radiation (abstract, page 4-7; fig 1, 2a, 6)
Wright fails to suggest the odd and even coaxial zones comprises the coated and decoated patterns and ratios of the instant claims.
Milne teaches a microwave lens comprising a glass substrate and a coating (e.g., copper); wherein the coating is arranged in a one-dimensional pattern (e.g., coated and uncoated pattern or dipole array) to cause both positive (i.e., transmission) and negative (i.e., reflection) or radiation (page 1, lines 35-128; page 2, lines 62-65, 110-114; figs 3, 4, 6).
Ngyuen teaches a system (e.g., gradient index lens for electromagnetic radiation for use with antenna systems) used to modify the properties of received and/or transmitted radiation that includes a dielectric substrate (e.g., lens) and a plurality of conducting patches (e.g., metal patches or particles so a coating) arranged in a square array (i.e., two-dimensional pattern) supported by the dielectric substrate (abstract, para 5-8, 11, 16, 19, 53; figs 1a-1b).
Therefore, per the teachings of Milne and Ngyuen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the coated and decoated patterns and/or shapes and ratios of the decoated and coated patterns of the elliptical zones of the focusing device of Wright to optimize the ability of the focusing device to absorb, reflect or transmit radiation.
Furthermore, It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the focusing device of Wright with the dimensions and shapes (i.e. the coated and decoated patterns and/or shapes and ratios of the decoated and coated patterns of the elliptical zones) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights