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) submitted on 04/14/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, 23 and 38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 14-19, 23-25, 27-31 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A).
Regarding claim 1:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) a radome (10), comprising: a structural layer (24) comprising a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite including a fiber reinforcement and a thermoplastic resin (Para. 0028, Lines 6-8) and an RF matching layer (26) disposed on at least one side of the structural layer (24), the RF matching layer (26) comprising a first dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) that is lower than that a dielectric constant value of the structural layer (2.5 to 4.5 for 24; See Table 1).
Ziolkowski et al. are silent on that a resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight.
Ziolkowski as modified do not explicitly disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight.
Kazutoki et al. disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is preferably 20 to 70% by mass, and more preferably 30 to 60% by mass (Para. 0021, Lines 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kazutoki and make Ziolkowski’s radome with the resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight for the benefit of providing a fiber reinforced composite and a method for producing the same that are excellent in terms of lightness and strength (Para. 0005, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 2:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforced composite comprises a laminated sheet stock material formable into a shape for the radome through a thermoforming process (Para. 0031, Lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 3:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose a second RF matching layer (22) disposed on an opposite side of the structural layer (24) as the RF matching layer (26), the second RF matching layer (22) having a second dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) that is lower than that of the structural layer (2.5 to 4.5 for 24; See Table 1).
Regarding claim 4:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose a second RF matching layer (28) disposed on a side of the RF matching layer (26) opposite the structural layer (24), the second RF matching layer (28) comprising a second dielectric constant value (1.05 to 1.25) that is lower than the first dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) of the RF matching layer (26).
Regarding claim 6:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the RF matching layer (26) comprises a thermoplastic syntactic layer (38; Para. 0011, Lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 14:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforcement comprises at least one of E-glass (Para. 0011, Lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 15:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the thermoplastic resin comprises at least one polypropylene (PP) (Para. 0011, Lines 8-11; Para. 0026, Lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 16:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the dielectric constant value of the structural layer (24) is a relative dielectric constant value of not less than about 2.0 and not greater than about 5.0 (See Table 1).
Regarding claim 17:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the first dielectric constant value of the RF matching layer (26) is a first relative dielectric constant value of not less than 1.0 and not greater than about 4.5 (See Table 1).
Regarding claim 18:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the RF matching layer (26) comprise a thickness not greater than about 5.0 mm (See Table 3).
Regarding claim 19:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the structural layer (24) comprises a thickness that is not less than about 1.0 mm and not greater than about 5.0 mm (See Table 3, Application B).
Regarding claim 23:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) a method for producing a radome (10), comprising: a structural layer (24) comprising a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite including a fiber reinforcement and a thermoplastic resin (Para. 0028, Lines 6-8); and an RF matching layer (26) disposed on at least one side of the structural layer (24), the RF matching layer (26) comprising a first dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) that is lower than that a dielectric constant value (2.5 to 4.5) of the structural layer (24); heating the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite; and thermoforming the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite into a radome shape defined by the mold (Para. 0027, Lines 9-12; Para. 0031, Lines 4-8).
Ziolkowski et al. are silent on that a resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight.
Kazutoki et al. disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is preferably 20 to 70% by mass, and more preferably 30 to 60% by mass (Para. 0021, Lines 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kazutoki and make Ziolkowski’s method for producing a radome with the resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight for the benefit of providing a fiber reinforced composite and a method for producing the same that are excellent in terms of lightness and strength (Para. 0005, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claims 24 and 25:
Ziolkowski et al. are silent on that the thermoforming comprises capturing the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite between a male mold portion and a female mold portion as required by claim 24; and the thermoforming comprises vacuum assisted thermoforming relative to the mold as required by claim 25.
Kazutoki et al. disclose the thermoforming comprises capturing the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite between a male mold portion and a female mold portion (Para. 0048, Lines 1-2); the thermoforming comprises vacuum assisted thermoforming relative to the mold (Para. 0039, Lines 3-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the thermoforming comprises capturing the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite between a male mold portion and a female mold portion and the thermoforming comprises vacuum assisted thermoforming relative to the mold as taught by Kazutoki et al. into the device of Ziolkowski et al. for the benefit of achieving an easier and cost effective manufacturing process of the fiber-reinforced composite layer with good appearance even when using a fiber reinforced resin material with poor formability (Para. 0039, Lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 27:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforced composite comprises a laminated sheet stock material (Para. 0031, Lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 28:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite comprises a second RF matching layer (22) disposed on an opposite side of the structural layer (24) as the RF matching layer (26), the second RF matching layer (22) having a second dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) that is lower than that of the structural layer (2.5 to 4.5 for 24; See Table 1).
Regarding claim 29:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite comprises a second RF matching layer (28) disposed on a side of the RF matching layer (26) opposite the structural layer (24), the second RF matching layer (28) comprising a second dielectric constant value (1.05 to 1.25) that is lower than the first dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) of the RF matching layer (26).
Regarding claim 31:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the RF matching layer (26) comprises a thermoplastic syntactic layer (38; Para. 0011, Lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 38:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers (Para. 0027, Lines 8-10)
Regarding claim 39:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the fiber reinforcement comprises at least one of E-glass (Para. 0011, Lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 40:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the thermoplastic resin comprises at least one polypropylene (PP) (Para. 0011, Lines 8-11; Para. 0026, Lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 41:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the dielectric constant value of the structural layer (24) is a relative dielectric constant value of not less than about 2.0 and not greater than about 5.0 (See Table 1).
Regarding claim 42:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the first dielectric constant value of the RF matching layer (26) is a first relative dielectric constant value of not less than 1.0 and not greater than about 4.5 (See Table 1).
Regarding claim 43:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the RF matching layer (26) comprise a thickness not greater than about 5.0 mm (See Table 3).
Regarding claim 44:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose the structural layer (24) comprises a thickness that is not less than about 1.0 mm and not greater than about 5.0 mm (See Table 3, Application B).
Claims 5 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A) as applied to claims 1 and 23 and further in view of Moore et al. (US 20200212556).
Regarding claims 5 and 30:
Ziolkowski as modified are silent on that the RF matching layer comprises a neat resin layer comprising the thermoplastic resin in the absence of the fiber reinforcement.
Moore et al. disclose the RF matching layer (110) comprises a neat resin layer comprising the thermoplastic resin in the absence of the fiber reinforcement (Para. 0023, Lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the RF matching layer comprises a neat resin layer comprising the thermoplastic resin in the absence of the fiber reinforcement as taught by Moore et al. into the modified device of Ziolkowski for the benefit of achieving desired dielectric constant (Para. 0021, Lines 23-27).
Claims 7-12, 20-22, 32-37 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A) as applied to claims 1 and 23 and further in view of Perez et al. (US 20190381760).
Regarding claims 7-12 and 32-37:
Ziolkowski as modified are silent on that the fiber reinforcement comprises a plurality of plies, wherein one or more peripheral plies comprises a lower dielectric constant value than one or more central plies as required by claims 7 and 32; the one or more peripheral plies comprise a higher resin content than the one or more central plies as required by claims 8 and 33; the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement than the one or more central plies as required by claims 9 and 34; the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement material than the one or more central plies as required by claims 10 and 35; the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement configuration than the one or more central plies as required by claims 11 and 36; and the fiber reinforcement comprises continuous fibers as required by claims 12 and 37.
Perez et al. disclose the fiber reinforcement comprises a plurality of plies (Para. 0019, Lines 6- 16), wherein one or more peripheral plies comprises a lower dielectric constant value than one or more central plies (Para. 0006, Lines 10-15; Para. 0019, Lines 32-40); the one or more peripheral plies comprise a higher resin content than the one or more central plies (Para. 0018, Lines 1-3; See Claim 1); the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement than the one or more central plies (Para. 0070, Lines 9-14); the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement material than the one or more central plies (Para. 0070, Lines 9-14); the one or more peripheral plies comprise a different fiber reinforcement configuration than the one or more central plies (Para. 0070, Lines 9-14); the fiber reinforcement (54) comprises continuous fibers (See Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the fiber reinforcement comprises a plurality of plies, wherein one or more peripheral plies comprises a lower dielectric constant value than one or more central plies as taught by Perez et al. into the modified device of Ziolkowski for the benefit of adjusting permittivities of the layers to enhance the transparency of the radome in a frequency band and with a range of angles of incidence (Para. 0006, Lines 4-8).
Regarding claims 20-22 and 45-47:
Ziolkowski as modified are silent on that a protective layer disposed on an outermost surface of the radome the outermost surface comprising an air interface surface as required by claims 20 and 45; the protective layer is applied to the structural layer as required by claims 21 and 46; and the protective layer is applied to the RF matching layer as required by claims 22 and 47.
Perez et al. disclose (in Figs. 2 and 3) a protective layer (50) disposed on an outermost surface of the radome (in Fig. 3), the outermost surface comprising an air interface surface (See Figs.); the protective layer (50) is applied to the structural layer (44); the protective layer (50) is applied to the RF matching layer (48).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the protective layer disposed on an outermost surface of the radome the outermost surface comprising an air interface surface and applied to the RF matching layer as taught by Perez et al. into the modified device of Ziolkowski for the benefit of providing the structural rigidity necessary for the mechanical protection of antennas (Para. 0004, Lines 1-4; Para. 0006, Lines 3-4).
Claims 13 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Conover et al. (US 20070238378), and further in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A).
Regarding claim 13:
Ziolkowski et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) a radome (10): a structural layer (defined by 24) comprising a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite including a fiber reinforcement and a thermoplastic resin (Para. 0028, Lines 6-8): wherein the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers (Para. 0027, Lines 8-10); and an RF matching layer (26) disposed on at least one side of the structural layer (24), the RF matching layer (26) comprising a first dielectric constant value (1.6 to 2.2) that is lower than that a dielectric constant value of the structural layer (2.5 to 4.5 for 24; See Table 1).
Ziolkowski et al. are silent on that a resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight, wherein the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers.
Conover et al. disclose (in Figs. 1-3) the structural layer (12) comprises fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite including a fiber reinforcement and a thermoplastic resin (Para. 0012, Lines 1-3), wherein the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers (Para. 0013, Lines 1-3 - reinforcing fibers having an average length of between about 5 mm and about 50 mm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the structural layer comprising a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite including a fiber reinforcement and a thermoplastic resin, wherein a resin content of the thermoplastic resin of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite as taught by Conover et al. into the device of Ziolkowski et al. for the benefit of conferring structural strength while allowing for easier manufacturing process (Para. 0018, Lines 1-7).
Ziolkowski as modified do not explicitly disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is not fewer than 25 percent by weight and not more than about 60 percent by weight.
Kazutoki et al. disclose the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite is preferably 20 to 70% by mass, and more preferably 30 to 60% by mass (Para. 0021, Lines 5-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the preferably 20 to 70% by mass, and more preferably 30 to 60% by mass as taught by Kazutoki et al. into the modified device of Ziolkowski for the benefit of providing a fiber reinforced composite and a method for producing the same that are excellent in terms of lightness and strength (Para. 0005, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 38:
Ziolkowski et al. is silent on that the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers.
Conover et al. disclose the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers (Para. 0013, Lines 1-3 - reinforcing fibers having an average length of between about 5 mm and about 50 mm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the fiber reinforcement comprises chopped fibers as taught by Conover et al. into the device of Ziolkowski et al. for the benefit of conferring structural strength the reinforcing fibers (Para. 0018, Lines 1-3).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski
et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A) as applied to claim 23 and
further in view of Conover et al. (US 20070238378).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski et al. (US 20130002514) in view of Kazutoki et al. (JP2016150561A) and Conover et al. (US 20070238378) as applied to claims 23 and 25 and further in view of Wu (US 20120092229).
Regarding claim 26:
Ziolkowski as modified are silent on that positioning mounting hardware relative to the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite such that the thermoforming includes embedding the mounting hardware into the fiber reinforce thermoplastic composite.
Wu discloses (in Figs. 3, 4, 5A, 6A, and 7A) positioning mounting hardware (32) relative to the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite (40) such that the thermoforming includes embedding the mounting hardware (32) into the fiber reinforce thermoplastic composite (40).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement positioning mounting hardware relative to the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite such that the thermoforming includes embedding the mounting hardware into the fiber reinforce thermoplastic composite as taught by Wu into the modified device of Ziolkowski for the benefit of providing acceptable protection, acceptable power transmission for a desired frequency band, and acceptable scan volume (Para. 0005, Lines 2-4).
Conclusion
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 BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights