Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/715,088

ANTENNA STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 24, 2024
Examiner
LEE, SEUNG H
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Postech Research And Business Development Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1030 granted / 1179 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1214
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1179 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 6-8 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. Applicant use the phrases “is substantially parallel” (claim 6, line 2 and claim 8, line 2) and “has a shape substantially the same as the shape” (claim 7, line 2), but the metes and bounds of this language are unclear. The examiner interprets this to mean "is parallel” and “has a same shape as the shape”. If this interpretation is incorrect, Applicants should so advise. Nevertheless, correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (WO 2021/147945, cited by the applicant and corresponding U.S. 2022/0276682 is used for this action). Re claim 1: Yu teaches an antenna structure (30A) comprising a radiator (310), a first transmission line (320) and a second transmission line (330) which extend in different directions from each other to be connected to the radiator, a first grounding portion (3401) serving as a first side ground pad disposed adjacent to the first transmission line, a fourth grounding portion (3404) serving as a second side ground pad disposed adjacent to the second transmission line, and a second grounding portion (3402) and a third grounding portion (3403) together serving as a central ground pad disposed between the first transmission line and the second transmission line, wherein the central ground pad includes a slit part (i.e., the second grounding portion and the third grounding portion are separated by a distance (D5) wherein the separation serves as the slip part), and a length of the central ground pad is longer than the lengths of the first side ground pad and the second side ground pad (see figs. 3A, 8; paragraphs 0125-0136). Re claim 2: Wherein the radiator has a rhombus shape, and the slit part has a triangular shape (fig. 8). Re claim 3: Wherein the first transmission line (320) comprises: a first feeding part (3201) extending in a longitudinal direction thereof, and a first bent part extending from the first feeding part to be connected to the radiator, and wherein the second transmission line (330) comprises a second feeding part (3301) extending in the longitudinal direction, and a second bent part extending from the second feeding part to be connected to the radiator (fig. 3A; paragraph 0128). Re claim 4: Wherein the first bent part is inclined at a first angle clockwise with respect to the longitudinal direction, and the second bent part is inclined at a second angle counterclockwise with respect to the longitudinal direction (fig. 3A). Re claim 5: Wherein the central ground pad includes a first cut part (3402B) and a second cut part (3403B), in which both corners thereof on the radiator side are cut (fig. 8; paragraph 0152). Re claim 7: Wherein the slit part has a same shape as the shape of a portion of the radiator adjacent to the slit part (fig. 8). Re claim 8: Wherein the slit part is parallel to a facing side of the radiator portion (fig. 8). Re claim 9: Wherein power feed signals having the same phase are applied to the first transmission line and the second transmission line (i.e., one feed line including both the first feed line (320) and the second feed line (330) (paragraph 0126) which implicitly imply the first and second feed line having same phase). 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu. In addition to the teachings of Yu as discussed above, he also teaches that a grid lines (i.e., the grid lines comprising the feed lines (320, 330) and the grounding portions (3401-3404)) can have various structures (paragraph 0135). However, he fails to particularly teach that the first/second cuts are parallel to the first/second bent parts respectively. It would have been an obvious design variation well within the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to failing to provide any unexpected results for choosing the particular shape of antenna module such as the first/second cuts being parallel to the first/second bent parts for receiving or transmitting signals therewith, and therefore an obvious expedient. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2022/0247083) teaches an antenna structure comprising a radiator, transmission lines, and ground pas. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM. 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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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. /SEUNG H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592483
SHIELD CAN HAVING ANTENNA FUNCTION AND ELECTRONIC MODULE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586906
ANTENNA PACKAGE USING BALL ATTACH ARRAY TO CONNECT ANTENNA AND BASE SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580610
RECONFIGURABLE INTELLIGENT SURFACE (RIS) ANTENNA AND RIS ANTENNA UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573744
WIDEBAND ANTENNAS IN GLASS THROUGH DIRECT VIA FEEDING AND GLASS STACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573743
MILLIMETER WAVE (MMW) INTEGRATED HINGE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1179 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