Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/686,865

SHIELD CAN HAVING ANTENNA FUNCTION

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
HAMADYK, ANNA N
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Amotech Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
38 granted / 45 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 11/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are currently pending. Amendments to the Specification and the claims have overcome the objections and provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/26/2025. 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 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desclos et al. (US 2013/0187818 – hereinafter Desclos) in view of Ollikainen (US 7,298,339B1; hereinafter Olli). Claim 1: Desclos discloses (fig. 4a shown below) “A shield can (¶42, shield can body 200) disposed on a printed circuit board (300) to cover electronic components (transceiver 310) mounted on the printed circuit board, comprising: a plurality of slits (210a, 210b) formed in the shield can (200); a shielding area which is the external area partitioned by the plurality of slits (210a, 210b); wherein each of the plurality of slits is formed by opening a portion of the upper surface and a portion of at least one of the side surfaces of the shield can (200)”. PNG media_image1.png 308 392 media_image1.png Greyscale Desclos does not teach, or suggest, the plurality of slits to partition the shield can into a plurality of internal areas and an external area spaced apart from the plurality of internal areas; and radiation areas which are the plurality of internal areas partitioned by the plurality of slits. Olli teaches (fig. 2 shown below) slits in a multiband antenna system 10 that is disposed above electronic components (fig. 6, 540) and can therefore act as a shield. The antenna system 10 comprises a plurality of slits to partition the antenna system (shield can) into a plurality of internal radiating areas (UMTS antennas 200 & diversity antenna 300) and an external area (100) spaced apart from the plurality of internal areas. PNG media_image2.png 385 506 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos, the plurality of slits to partition the shield can into a plurality of internal areas and an external area spaced apart from the plurality of internal areas; and radiation areas which are the plurality of internal areas partitioned by the plurality of slits. Doing so allows for a compact antenna which operates efficiently at multiple communication system bands (col. 1, lines 36-). Claim 2: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. The modified Desclos teaches “wherein the radiation areas are disposed in a perimetric direction of the shield can at distances”. Desclos shows, in fig. 4a, that the radiating portions of the shield can are formed at the perimeter of the shield can and are spaced apart from one another. Claim 5: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. Desclos does not disclose, but Olli teaches (fig. 2) “wherein each of the plurality of slits is in the form of surrounding each of the radiation areas (200, 300) in all directions and in the form of an open portion except for a connection portion (210, 220, 310, 320) of the radiation area and the shield area”. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein each of the plurality of slits is in the form of surrounding each of the radiation areas in all directions and in the form of an open portion except for a connection portion of the radiation area and the shield area. Doing so provides feed points for feeding the radiation areas (col. 4, lines 26-). Claim 6: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. Desclos does not disclose, but Olli teaches (fig. 2) “wherein the radiation area has one of a meander line shape or a patch shape”. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein the radiation area has one of a meander line shape or a patch shape. Doing so allows for a compact antenna which operates efficiently at multiple communication system bands (col. 1, lines 36-). Claim 7: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. Desclos does not disclose “wherein a first radiation area, which is any one of the radiation areas, is formed in a meander line shape to resonate in a first frequency band, and a plurality of second radiation areas except for the first radiation area among the radiation areas is formed in a patch shape to resonate in a second frequency band which differs from the first frequency band”. However, Olli teaches a first radiation area (300) is formed in a meander line shape to resonate in a first frequency band (col. 4, lines 34-35; “The UMTS receive diversity antenna 300 operates in a frequency of 2110-2170 MHz”). Olli also teaches a plurality of second radiation areas formed in a patch shape (antenna 200 comprises two patch-shaped radiation areas) to resonate in a second frequency band which differs from the first frequency band (col. 4, lines 32-33; “The UMTS antenna 200 operates in a frequency range of 1920-2170 MHz”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein a first radiation area, which is any one of the radiation areas, is formed in a meander line shape to resonate in a first frequency band, and a plurality of second radiation areas except for the first radiation area among the radiation areas is formed in a patch shape to resonate in a second frequency band which differs from the first frequency band. Doing so allows for a compact antenna which operates efficiently at multiple communication system bands (col. 1, lines 36-). Claim 8: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 7. Desclos does not disclose “wherein the plurality of slits include: a first slit disposed between the first radiation area and the shielding area; and a second slit disposed between the plurality of second radiation areas and the shielding area, and widths of the first slit and the second slit are 1 mm or more”. Olli teaches (fig. 2) wherein the plurality of slits include: a first slit disposed between the first radiation area (300) and the shielding area (100); and a second slit disposed between the plurality of second radiation areas (200) and the shielding area (100). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein the plurality of slits include: a first slit disposed between the first radiation area and the shielding area; and a second slit disposed between the plurality of second radiation areas and the shielding area. Doing so allows for a compact antenna which operates efficiently at multiple communication system bands (col. 1, lines 36-). Although Olli does not explicitly teach the widths of the first slit and the second slit are 1 mm or more, Olli does teach that each of the antennas can be located close to each other while achieving sufficiently large isolation between the antennas. Olli also teaches that the physical separation between two antenna elements of the device is small (col. 5, lines 47-67). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein widths of the first slit and the second slit are 1 mm or more. Doing so allows for a compact diversity antenna which reduces interference between the different antennas. Furthermore, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Claim 9: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 7. Desclos does not disclose, but Olli teaches (fig. 2) “wherein two adjacent radiation areas among the plurality of second radiation areas (200) are provided symmetrically on an upper surface of the shield can (10)”. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein two adjacent radiation areas among the plurality of second radiation areas are provided symmetrically on an upper surface of the shield can. Doing so allows for a compact antenna which operates efficiently at multiple communication system bands (col. 1, lines 36-). Claim 10: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 7. Desclos does not disclose “wherein the first radiation area resonates in the first frequency band to operate as a Bluetooth® low energy (BLE) antenna, and the plurality of second radiation areas resonate in the second frequency band to operate as an ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna”. However, Olli teaches that the first (300) and second (200) radiation areas may operate at different frequencies (col. 4, lines 32-35). Olli also teaches that the device may cover different bands and any combination of the different bands (col. 6, lines 26-33). Olli further teaches (col. 6, lines 53-62) that the device can be applicable to CDMA and non-cellular protocols such as WLAN and Bluetooth™ as well as GSM and UMTS. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein the first radiation area resonates in the first frequency band to operate as a Bluetooth® low energy (BLE) antenna, and the plurality of second radiation areas resonate in the second frequency band to operate as an ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna. Doing so allows for a shield can that operates with modern mobile phones and other portable devices. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desclos in view of Olli, and further in view of Yuanzhu (US 2006/0077113 – of record). Claim 3: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. Desclos does not disclose “wherein each of the radiation areas is disposed adjacent to four corners of the shield can”. Yuanzhu teaches (fig. 1 below) radiation areas (radiation slots 16, 17) disposed adjacent to four corners of the shield can (upper shield case 13). PNG media_image3.png 509 612 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yuanzhu to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, wherein each of the radiation areas is disposed adjacent to four corners of the shield can. Doing so allows for a miniaturized/compact and inexpensive antenna device (¶4, ¶6 & ¶12 of Yuanzhu). Claim 11: the modified Desclos teaches the shield can of claim 1. Desclos does not disclose “a feeding area formed on a lower surface of the shield can and connected to each of the radiation areas; and a bonding area formed along a bottom edge of the shield can spaced apart from the feeding area, and bonded to the printed circuit board”. Olli teaches (fig. 2) a feeding area (feed points 310 and 210) formed on a lower surface of the shield can and connected to each of the radiation areas (300 and 200); and a bonding area formed along a bottom edge of the shield can (bottom edge adjacent 130, for example) spaced apart from the feeding area (310 and 210). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Olli to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, further comprising a feeding area formed on a lower surface of the shield can and connected to each of the radiation areas; and a bonding area formed along a bottom edge of the shield can spaced apart from the feeding area. Doing so allows the radiation areas to be fed diversity signals and the shield can (10) to be affixed the circuit board (PWB). Olli does not explicitly teach “and bonded to the printed circuit board”. However, Yuanzhu teaches (¶20) that a portion of a shield can which includes antennas (fig. 4, power feeding member 14c) can be soldered to (i.e., bonded to) a portion (18) of a PCB (11). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yuanzhu to the shield can of Desclos in view of Olli, to include bonded to the printed circuit board. Doing so allows for a more robust connection between the shield can and the PCB. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 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 ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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 (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 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 /ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Apr 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603412
MOBILE DEVICE SUPPORTING WIDEBAND OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592472
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586895
MOUNTING ARRANGEMENT FOR AN ANTENNA AND AN ANTENNA ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580307
SCALABLE ELECTRONICALLY STEERABLE ANTENNA FOR L-BAND COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573762
ANTENNA APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC TIMEPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+11.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 45 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