Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/800,130

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING HIGH-FREQUENCY FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 16, 2022
Examiner
TALBOT, BRIAN K
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
680 granted / 1151 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1209
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
62.0%
+22.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1151 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/25 has been entered. The amendment filed 12/24/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 9 and 19 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-8,10-18 and 20-21 remain in the application. Considering the amendment filed 12/24/25, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 21 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. Regarding claim 21, the claim is not further limiting as it is identical to limitations recited in claim 1 whereby “the walls of the base body are fully or partially designed as lattices”. Clarification is requested. 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. Claims 1,3-8,10-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820). Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches a three-dimensional sub-mm wavelength sub-thz frequency antenna on flexible and UV curable dielectrics using printed electronic metal traces. Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a 3D base body and printing a metal nanoparticle solution on the dielectric 3D structure to create conductive traces and sintering the nanoparticle to form the conductive traces (abstract). Panat et al. (10,086,432) fails to teach forming the conductive traces by dipping or pouring the nanoparticulate inks. Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) teaches forming transponder fabrication methods whereby forming antenna components including horn antennas by dipping or pouring the conductive traces (abstract, [0014],[0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) process to include forming the conductive traces by dipping or pouring as evidenced by Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) with the expectation of achieving similar success. Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) fails to teach the incorporation of apertures in the functional shape structure. CN 106356607 teaches a method of manufacturing a radio frequency device with a composite structure and using a conductive process to form selective conductive layer structure on the surface of the substate (abstract). CN 106356607 teaches the structure is a layered structure composed of multiple grids as an open structure to ensure easy electroplating or immersion of the conductive treatment solutions [0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) process to include coating of the walls of the waveguide with conductive material as evidenced by CN 106356607 with the expectation of success, i.e. conductive grides which aid in conductive coating applied thereto. Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 fail to teach calibrating the viscosity of the conductive dispersion based on smallest aperture. Fuse (2012/0104611) teaches when coating through hole vias the viscosity of the coating solution and the aspect ratio of the via can determine the filling/lining of the via with the coating solution. Fuse (2012/0104611) teaches calculating the desired viscosity based on the aspect ratio of the through hole via [0081],[0096]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 process of coating vias by calculating the viscosity based upon the aspect ratio of the vias as evidenced by Fuse (2012/0104611) with the expectation of complete coating of the vias by controlling the viscosity of the solution based thereupon. Regarding the smallest vias this would be inherently done as this would control the filling of all vias having different aspect ratios upon a single substrate. Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) fails to teach the claimed base body to have a rectangular cross-section and one or more walls comprise apertured to extend there through. Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches a waveguide element whereby slots (17) are formed in walls of a waveguide having a rectangular cross section (abstract, [0018],[0020] and Fig 7C,7D). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) waveguide to include a rectangular cross section and slots therein as evidenced by Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) with the expectation of producing the desired waveguide shape. Regarding claim 1, the base body is provided and determined by forming the base body using 3D printing and the wetting is met by applying the conductive nanoparticles solution to the 3D base body. The functional structure is met by forming antennas such as horn antennas and waveguides (col. 4, line 63 – col. 5 line 10). Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a base body where a conductive surface is necessary to ensure radio frequency function as it forms the antennas and waveguides. Both Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) and CN 106356607 teach coating conductive material for waveguides/antennas by dipping or immersion while CN 106356607 teaches a grid structure, (claimed lattices). Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches a waveguide element whereby slots (17) are formed in walls of a waveguide having a rectangular cross section (abstract, [0018],[0020] and Fig 7C,7D). Regarding claim 4, Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) teaches forming transponder fabrication methods whereby forming antenna components including horn antennas by pouring the conductive traces (abstract,[0014],[0015]). Regarding claims 3 and 5, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches spraying the nanoparticle solution and using an atomizer and hence would produce a mist (claimed aerosol (col. 9, lines 3-35 and col. 11, lines 22-39). Regarding claim 6, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the nanoparticles include metals such as silver, gold, copper and aluminum (col. 4, lines 42-60). Regarding claim 7, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25). Regarding claim 8, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which would include lines (col. 4, lines 30-35) Regarding claim 10, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the conductive ink to include solvents (col. 4, lines 40-45). Regarding claim 11, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics on any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38). Regarding claim 12, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38). Regarding claim 13, Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65). Regarding claim 14, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the nanoparticles include metals such as silver, gold, copper and aluminum (col. 4, lines 42-60) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25). Regarding claim 15, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which would include lines (col. 4, lines 30-35) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a base body where a conductive surface is necessary to ensure radio frequency function as it form the antennas and waveguides. Regarding claim 16, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the conductive ink to include solvents (col. 4, lines 40-45) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics or any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38). Regarding claim 17, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38) and Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65). Regarding claim 18, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which include horn antennas and waveguides (col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 10). Regarding claim 20, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38) and Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics an any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38). Regarding claim 21, CN 106356607 teaches a grid structure, (claimed lattices) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) further in combination with Garlough et al. (6,037,020). Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820). Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) fails to teach dipping bath to by an ultrasound bath. Garlough et al. (6,037,020) teaches an ultrasonic mixing of through hole treating compositions whereby a conductive composition (graphite) is coated on interior of the holes with the aid of ultrasound (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) with the expectation of improving the coating within the holes. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8,10-18 and 20-21 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. Applicant argued prior art fails to teach fail to teach the RF structure to be designed as lattices. Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches this as detailed above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF. 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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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. /BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 09, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 11, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597658
SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY PACK, AND AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595564
METHOD OF FORMING SURFACE TREATMENT FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582976
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR RADIALLY-ZONED CATALYST COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586846
SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583016
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE, CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, AND, ELECTRODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+31.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1151 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month