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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/24/2024 has been acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/17/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 (Invention I) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious burden to examine all of the claims on the merits because all of the claims are related to reflectors for antennas with a plurality of shaped regions having a curvature based on scans of electromagnetic energy rays.
This is not found persuasive because the elected Invention I (claims 1-9) being a method of making the reflector and inventions II and III (claims 10-17 and claims 18-20 respectively) being products including the reflector are directed towards the different statutory categories of invention, processes and products, therefore Invention I and Inventions II and III would require separate searches and examinations which would place an examination burden on the examiner should they be examined together. For example, the inventions have a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications as summarized in the restriction requirement which would require a different field of search including class/sub-classes or electronic resources employing different search queries, the inventions have acquired a separatee status in the art due to their divergent subject matter, for example the designing/manufacturing steps as recited in claim 1 are not shared in the other inventions, prior art applicable to one inventions would likely not be applicable to other inventions, for example a prior art reference that applies to the product inventions would likely not disclose the method of manufacturing of Invention I, and the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art related issues under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and/or Statutory or non-Statutory Double Patenting.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-9 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 5-7 recites the limitation “shaping a plurality of reflector regions based on the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays, wherein the plurality of reflector regions has different curvatures corresponding to the scan directions”. It is not sufficiently clear from the claim language if the plurality of reflector regions has a single curvature that is different depending on the scan directions or if each of the reflector regions each have a different curvature based on the different scan directions; further, it is not sufficiently clear what “corresponding to the scan directions” means in the context to the curvatures of the reflector regions, for example how does a curvature correspond to a scan direction? is it perpendicular to the scan direction, does it reflect the scan direction to something?, etc.; furthermore, it is not clear how or if there is any connection between the reflector regions and the reflector introduced in the preamble of claim 1; thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the reflector regions are part of a reflector surface of the reflector, each of the reflector regions each have a different curvature that direct the traces electromagnetic energy arrays to an array aperture (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 1 line 8-9 recites the limitation “performing a local optimization of the curvatures of the plurality of reflector regions to yield a locally optimized plurality of reflector regions”. It is not sufficiently clear what the “local optimization” does or what the results of the “local optimization” are other than “locally optimized plurality of reflector regions” which does not describe how these reflector regions are locally optimized or the properties of a “locally optimized reflector region”, thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the local optimization is performed on the curvatures of each of the plurality of reflector regions and the local optimization results in directing the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays to the array aperture (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 1 line 10-11 recites the limitation “blending the locally optimized plurality of reflector regions to yield a blended plurality of reflector regions”. It is not sufficiently clear from the claim language what “blending” does or what the result of the blending of the reflector regions is, for example does blending mean joining the reflector regions together?, overlapping the reflector regions? rearranging the reflector regions?, averaging the shapes of the reflector regions where they meet and/or overlap?, etc., thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the blending yield a single continuous surface from the locally optimized plurality of reflector regions (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 1 line 12-13 recites the limitation “performing a global optimization of the blended plurality of reflector regions to yield a globally optimized plurality of reflector regions”. It is not sufficiently clear what the “global optimization” does or what the results of the “global optimization” are other than “globally optimized plurality of reflector regions” which does not describe how these reflector regions are globally optimized or the properties of a “globally optimized reflector region”, thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the global optimization is performed over the entire single continuous surface of the blended plurality of reflector regions and the global optimization yields a single continuous reflector surface optimized to maximize the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays directed to the array aperture (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 1 line 15 recites the limitation “forming a reflector based on the overall shape”. However, it is unclear from the claim language if this forming is meant to mean simply determining a shape of the entire reflector based on the overall shape determined in the previous steps or if this is meant to mean actually manufacturing the reflector based on the overall shape, thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the reflector is manufactured based on the overall shape (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “performing the local optimization comprises using an optimization algorithm to select the one or more polynomial coefficients or a plurality of reflector points, wherein a cost function is defined by an array aperture illumination percentage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more polynomial coefficients”, and it is not sufficiently clear from the claim language how or if the cost function relates to the optimization algorithm, further it is not sufficiently clear what is meant by a cost function being “defined” by an array aperture illumination percentage; thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the optimization algorithm uses the cost function to select one or more polynomial coefficients of the polynomial introduced in claim 3 and the cost function maximizes an array aperture illumination percentage of the traced plurality of electromagnetic rays that reach the array aperture (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the shaping comprises modeling a reflector surface with a set of points and using a spline interpolation to define a continuous surface with a continuous first derivative that passes through the points”. It is not sufficiently clear from the claim language how the reflector surface introduced this claim relates to the reflector and/or the reflector regions as introduced in claim 1, thereby rendering the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are not sufficiently clear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this limitation in accordance with the proposed examiner amendment provided below in which the claims clearly define the reflector surface as comprising the plurality of reflector regions (see below provided proposed examiner amendment).
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 are rejected based on their dependence on rejection claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of a metal process with or without the use of a generic computer because the recites steps are processes that can be either performed using mental processes or metal processes that can be aided with the use of a generic computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited process steps as claimed, e.g. tracing, shaping, performing optimizations, blending, generating a shape, and forming an overall shape, can all be performed by mental process and/or mental process performed on a generic computer because there is nothing being done other than the manipulation of data for designing a reflector without going into any specific details on how these processes are completed (it is noted by the examiner that the step of “forming a reflector based on the overall shape” can be considered a mental process and/or metal process performed on a computer because it does not include any details regarding any actual manufacturing of the reflector, and can therefore be interpreted to simply meaning forming/determining a shape of the reflector to be manufactured). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed process steps, as summarized above, are only directed to the manipulation of data for the design/determining the shape of a reflector without any actually performing any specific actions to manufacture the reflector or doing anything “significantly more” than the manipulation of data that could be performed as a mental process or metal process performed on a generic computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 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 as well as 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is directed towards a method of manufacturing a reflector for an antenna. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, specifically the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the following combination of limitations from claim 1:
a method for manufacturing a reflector for an antenna including a shaping step of a plurality of reflector regions of a reflector surface of a reflector each with different curvatures based on traced electromagnetic energy rays from a plurality of scan directions such that the rays are reflected towards an array aperture, a first optimization step of locally optimizing the curvatures of each of the reflector regions so that each reflector region directs the electromagnetic energy rays to the array aperture, a blending step of forming a single continuous surface from the reflector regions, and a second optimization step of globally optimizing the blended reflector regions over the entire single continuous surface such that the traced electromagnetic energy rays that are directed to the array aperture are maximized followed by generating the overall shape based on using the globally optimized plurality of reflector regions and manufacturing a reflector based on the overall shape.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention are the following that do not disclose or render obvious an initial shaping step of different reflector regions of a reflector each with different curvatures, a local optimizing step of optimizing the curvatures of the different regions so that traced energy rays from plural scan directions that are directed to an array aperture, blending the reflector regions into a single continuous surface, and a global optimization over the entire single continuous surface maximizing the traced electromagnetic energy rays that are directed to the array aperture:
US 5,096,281 discloses an optical transform system (side mirror of a vehicle) including a mirror surface including a matrix of mini mirrors (see 42 in Fig 4), wherein the shape of each of the mini mirrors is shaped based on an iterative process to reflect an image of an object with variable magnification and/or traced ray intensity (see Fig 9-12, 23, 25-26, and 37). This reference does not disclose that the reflector surface is optimized to direct traced electromagnetic energy rays from a plurality of scan directions to an array aperture, an initial local optimization of the curvatures of the plurality of reflector regions, a step of blending the locally optimized reflector regions to form a single continuous surface, and performing a global optimization of the blended reflector regions over the entire single continuous surface to maximize the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays directed to the array aperture.
US 6,255,997 discloses an antenna reflector with localized bumps/dents (see B and D in Fig 3) that are tuned so that the reflector cooperates with several spaced apart focuses to direct electromagnetic beams can be directed to common regions (see 3A and 3B in Fig 2). This reference also does not disclose an initial local optimization of curvatures of the plurality of reflector regions, a step of blending the locally optimized reflector regions to form a single continuous surface, and performing a global optimization of the blended reflector regions over the entire single continuous surface to maximize the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays directed to the array aperture.
US 2014/0028494, US 2017/0338556, US 5136294, US 6,977,622, US 11831075, and US 7345653 disclose similar reflector(s) and/or methods of designing or constructing the reflectors, but similarly do not disclose the combination of locally optimization the curvatures of the plurality of reflector regions, blending the locally optimized reflector regions to form a single continuous surface, and globally optimizing the blended reflector regions over the entire single continuous surface to maximize the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays directed to the array aperture.
The following is a proposed examiner amendment to the claims proposed to the applicants in the interview on 01/13/2026 that would overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections listed above:
Cancel withdrawn claims 10-20.
Cancel claim 8.
1. A method for manufacturing a reflector for an antenna, the method comprising:
tracing a plurality of electromagnetic energy rays from a plurality of scan directions;
shaping a plurality of reflector regions of a reflector surface of the reflector based on the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays, wherein the plurality of reflector regions [[has]] each have different curvatures corresponding to the scan directions such that the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays are reflected towards an array aperture;
performing a local optimization of the curvatures of each of the plurality of reflector regions to yield a locally optimized plurality of reflector regions that each direct the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays to the array aperture;
blending the locally optimized plurality of reflector regions to yield a blended plurality of reflector regions that together yield a single continuous surface;
performing a global optimization of the blended plurality of reflector regions over the entire single continuous surface to yield a globally optimized plurality of reflector regions that together yield a single continuous reflector surface optimized to maximize the traced plurality of electromagnetic energy rays directed to the array aperture;
generating an overall shape for the reflector surface of the reflector using the globally optimized plurality of reflector regions; and
[[forming]] manufacturing a reflector based on the overall shape.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein performing the local optimization comprises using an optimization algorithm that uses a cost function to select [[the]] one or more polynomial coefficients of the polynomial or a plurality of reflector points, wherein [[a]] the cost function maximizes an array aperture illumination percentage of the traced plurality of electromagnetic rays that reach the array aperture.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the shaping comprises modeling [[a]] the reflector surface of the reflector with a set of points and using a spline interpolation to define a continuous surface with a continuous first derivative that passes through the points.
9. The method of claim [[8]] 1, further comprising fitting a global polynomial or a spline across an entire surface encompassing the plurality of reflector regions to form the single continuous surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D. Anderson, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0157. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 1 PM Arizona time.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong, can be reached at (571) 272-0993.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/JOSHUA D ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729