Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/651,867

Combined Air Waveguide Antenna and Housing

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
PHAN, THO GIA
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Aptiv Technologies AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
930 granted / 1017 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1045
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1017 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. What is a difference between “a parasitic fin” in claim 12, line 6 and claim 14, line 1. 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. Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriquez-Garcia et al (12,401,129) in view of Gustafson et al (11,450,962). Regarding claim 1, Rodriquez-Garcia et al disclose a first fin 110 arranged in the first side 107 and defining a first (middle portion) long curve and a first (end portions) short curve and disposed on the first side of the PCB 105 (col3, lines 45-58); a microstrip feed line 112,141 connected to the first fin. Regarding claims 2-4, Rodriquez-Garcia et al disclose the first long curve is defined by a first exponential function; and the first short curve is defined by a second exponential function different than the first exponential function (figs1-3), further comprising a second fin 111 arranged in the second side and defining a second long curve and a second short curve and disposed on the second side of the PCB 105, the second long curve matches the first long curve; and the second short curve matches the first short curve (figs4-5). Rodriquez-Garcia et al had been discussed but fail to teach a PCB including a first side and a second side, the first side including a first plurality of components arranged in a first circuit, the second side opposing the first side and including a second plurality of components arranged in a second circuit and a matching section disposed between the first fin and the microstrip feed line. However, Gustafson et al in figure 1 teach a PCB (micro-PCB) including a first side and a second side, the first side including a first plurality of components 106 arranged in a first circuit, the second side opposing the first side and including a second plurality of components 108 arranged in a second circuit and a matching section 134-1,134-2. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Rodriquez-Garcia et al with a PCB including a first side and a second side, the first side including a first plurality of components arranged in a first circuit, the second side opposing the first side and including a second plurality of components arranged in a second circuit and a matching section disposed between the first fin and the microstrip feed line for the purpose of impedance matching so as to improve the antenna gain. Claims 8, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriquez-Garcia et al (12,401,129) in view of Gustafson et al (11,450,962) and further in view of Morimoto et al (12,355,140). Rodriquez-Garcia et al had been discussed and also teach an additional PCB 117,118 coupled to the second side of the PCB 105 (fig1). However, Rodriquez-Garcia et al in view of Gustafson et al fail to teach a parasitic fin disposed on the first or second side of the PCB and wherein the parasitic fin is spaced apart from the first fin. However, Morimoto et al disclose a parasitic element 115 disposed on the first side of the PCB and wherein the parasitic is spaced apart from the first driven element 110 (fig.16). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Rodriquez-Garcia et al with a parasitic fin disposed on the first or second side of the PCB and wherein the parasitic fin is spaced apart from the first fin so that directivity oriented toward the outside of the electronic device is achieved by the antenna element. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6, 9-11 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The patents to Hasegawa, Samardzija, Wunsch, Meharry and Benzel are cited as of interested and illustrated a similar structure to a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO GIA PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1826. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8-430). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /THO G PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 25, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603438
QUASI-HELICAL ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603437
ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597703
VEHICULAR ANTENNA DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595380
RFID SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592495
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MITIGATING INTERFERENCE FROM SATELLITE GATEWAY ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
91%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+4.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1017 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