Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/562,486

LOW-COST MINIATURIZED VERTICAL COAXIAL CABLE TO PCB TRANSITION FOR USE IN ULTRA-DENSE BASE STATION ANTENNAS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
MUNOZ, DANIEL
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
John Mezzalinqua Associates LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
407 granted / 542 resolved
+7.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
558
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “ each of the plurality of cutouts having a pair of interlocking slots ” is recited. It is unclear how the slot 520 are considered “interlocking”. From the Figures it appears that slots 520 are on opposite sides of the cutout, while the term “interlocking” suggests that the slots overlap in some fashion, or are tied together. Is the term “interlocking” intended to mean something different? Does it just refer to the functionality of the slots as being the locking point for the vertical clips? Further clarification is needed, and for examination purposes, the latter interpretation will be used as it appears to embody the disclosure more accurately. The rest of the claims are rejected based on their dependence from the above claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull (U.S. Patent No. 3910665 , made of record in IDS dated 20 November 2023 ), hereinafter known as M artin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8932078 ), hereinafter known as Martin. Regarding claim s 1 and 5 , Stull teaches (Figs. 1-2) an antenna having one or more PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards) (10), each of the one or more PCBs comprising: a plurality of cutouts (12 , 14 ) formed in the PCB, an inner conductor recess (12) , and a solder pad (16) disposed proximate to the inner conductor recess, wherein the solder pad is electrically coupled to an RF trace disposed on the PCB (not shown, part of circuit board, col. 1, lines 33-40) ; a plurality of vertical clips (26) , each corresponding to one of the plurality of cutouts (see Fig. 1) , wherein each vertical clip is installed on an interior edge of its corresponding cutout (see Fig. 1) , the vertical clip having a clip body (28) , a cylindrical outer conductor receptacle (42) , and a pair of mounting tabs (40) , wherein the pair of mounting tabs engage with the pair of interlocking slots (see Fig. 1) ; and a plurality of RF cables (20) , each of the plurality of RF cables mechanically coupled to a corresponding vertical clip and corresponding cutout (see Fig. 1) , wherein each RF cable has an inner conductor (18) that is soldered to a corresponding solder pad, and each RF cable has an outer conductor (22) that is soldered to a corresponding cylindrical outer receptacle (see Fig. 1) . Stull does not teach further details regarding the cutouts. Martin teaches (Figs. 1-10 ) a plurality of cutouts ( not labeled, see Fig. 9b, 516 lies within ) formed in the PCB, each of the plurality of cutouts having a pair of interlocking slots ( 348, see Fig. ) , and a solder pad ( 542 ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the cutouts of Martin in the connectors of Stull since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) The slots provide a secure connection and restrict lateral movement more effectively. Regarding claim 2, Stull as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a first subset having one or more interior cutouts (see Fig. 1), but does not teach a second subset. Martin teaches (Figs. 1-10 ) a second subset having one or more edge mount cutouts (see Fig. 5 ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art add the placement of the cutouts of Martin to the circuit boards of Stull since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Combining the two sets of cutouts provides increased locations for connectors on one circuit board, reducing the number overall necessary. Regarding claim 3, Stull as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as arranged, but does not teach further details of the PCB. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use a multilayer PCB in Stull since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) A multilayer PCB provides increased circuit design space, which is well known to a skilled artisan and would be obvious to substitute in the disclosure of Stull. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8192209 ) teaches a coaxial connector. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1957 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jessica Han can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2078 . 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. /DANIEL MUNOZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603415
MOUNTING ASSEMBLY FOR BASE STATION ANTENNA AND BASE STATION ANTENNA SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592477
ANTENNA, ANTENNA ARRAY AND MOBILE COMMUNICATION BASE STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592493
METASURFACE UNIT AND ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586890
ANTENNA DEVICE AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586918
COMMUNICATIONS ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+22.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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