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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 06/25/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR20240082982 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, therefore, the current application will not be entitled to the benefits of an earlier filling date.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are currently pending. Applicant’s cancelling of claim 9 has overcome the drawing objections and 35 USC 112 rejections regarding claim 9 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/10/2025. However, other drawing objection and 35 USC 112 rejection for claim 8 still maintain as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
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 feature “a quartz material layered on both an exterior and an interior of the body” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature would be canceled from the claim. Figs. 2-4 shows the quartz material 200, 300, 400 are on the cap bracket 20, not the body 30. Examiner suggests amending drawings from reference number “20” to “30”.
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “A quartz 200 material may be layered on the outer portion of the body 30 as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3” as described in page 7, lines 15-16 of the specification but figs. 2-4 show the quartz material 200 layer on the cap bracket 20. Although Applicant has amended the spec “ as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3”, it does not resolve the conflict between the drawings and the specification. Examiner suggests amending drawings from reference number “20” to “30”.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein the quartz material on the exterior is layered to have a netlike form formed by lateral bands and longitudinal bands" in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. The feature “netlike form” will conflict with claim 1 that “a quartz material layered on both an exterior and an interior of the body with gaps therebetween such that the quartz material on the exterior and the interior do not overlap”.
Fig. 3 shows the limitation of claim 1 which the lateral bands 200, 300 of the quartz material do not overlap and fig. 4 shows the limitation of claim 8 which the quartz material 400 is layered to have a netlike form, but when figs. 3 and 4 are combined, the longitudinal bands of the quartz material 400 will overlap the lateral bands of the quartz material 300. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “a quartz material layered on both an exterior and an interior of the body with gaps therebetween such that the quartz material on the exterior and the interior do not overlap”.
Ryu et al (KR-102462750-B1), Radtke (DE-102011105426-A1), Song et al (CN-106508079-B), Kishimoto et al (JP-H06283918-A) and Hou et al (CN-116604896-A) are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a radome comprising: a cap having a form of a hollow dome; a cap bracket secured to the cap by way of a screw-on structure, the cap bracket having an open top and an open bottom and having a cylindrical form with an interior thereof communicating with an interior of the cap; and a body made of a molybdenum-added stainless alloy, the body secured to the cap bracket by way of a screw-on structure, the body having a cylindrical form with only an upper surface thereof open ; and a quartz material layered on both an exterior and an interior of the body.
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are considered allowable due to their respective dependencies.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845