Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/763,072

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
ISLAM, HASAN Z
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Innolux Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
568 granted / 673 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
697
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 673 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 reciting “connected the bottom” should read --connecting the bottom--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 6 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. Claim 6 reciting “a second bonding element” is indefinite, since it’s unclear how such a second bonding element may be present absent a first bonding element. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted to depend from claim 4, which recites “a first bonding element”. There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable electronic device. 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, 6, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Baek” (US 20170213794) in view of “Kim” (US 10985451). Claim 1: Baek discloses an electronic device, comprising: a circuit structure (140+120; Fig. 3 reproduced below) having a first (top) surface (of 140) and a second (bottom) surface (of 120) opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface has a first portion A, a second portion B and a third portion C, such that the third portion connects the first portion and the second portion, and a recess (filled with 134) is formed in the third portion, and in a normal direction of the electronic device, the first portion and the second portion are farther away from the second surface than the third portion (see Fig. 3); PNG media_image1.png 314 492 media_image1.png Greyscale an electronic component 130 disposed in the recess, wherein the electronic component is electrically connected to the circuit structure (¶ 41: “The second wiring part 140 may electrically connect the electronic component”); a conductive unit 142 disposed on the first portion of the first surface of the circuit structure, wherein the conductive unit is electrically connected to the electronic component through the circuit structure (see Fig. 3 and ¶ 41); and a shielding layer 134 surrounding the electronic component. Baek fails to expressly teach the conductive unit being an antenna. Kim discloses the conductive unit 115a (Fig. 6) being an antenna and teaches “The antenna package 100a may include a plurality of antenna members 115a configured to transmit or receive an RF signal, and a plurality of feed vias 120a.” (Col. 6, ll. 28-30) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Baek’s conductive unit as an antenna, in order to transmit or receive RF signal(s). Method claim 15 recite limitations that are same in scope to claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected for the same aforementioned reasons. Claim 4: Baek teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first bonding element 133 (Fig. 3) disposed on the second surface of the circuit structure and electrically connected to the electronic component. Claim 6: As best understood, Baek teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second bonding element 132 disposed between the electronic component and the circuit structure, wherein the second bonding element electrically connects the electronic component to the circuit structure through the second bonding element (see Fig. 3). Claim 14: Baek teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a protective layer (110+120+141) surrounding and covering the shielding layer and the electronic component (see Fig. 3). Claim 18: Baek teaches the method of manufacturing the electronic device as claimed in claim 15, further comprising forming a protective layer 134 surrounding and covering the shielding layer and the electronic component (see Fig. 3). Claim 19: Baek teaches the method of manufacturing the electronic device as claimed in claim 15, further comprising disposing a first bonding element 133 on the second surface of the circuit structure, wherein the first bonding element electrically connects to the electronic component (see Fig. 3). Claim 20: Baek teaches the method of manufacturing the electronic device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the step of forming the shielding layer comprises a shielding sublayer formation process for forming a first sublayer on a patterned shielding material layer after patterning the shielding material layer (the method of forming the shielding layer is not germane to the issue of patentability itself; hence, this limitation has not been given patentable weight). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 5, 7-13, 16-17 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. Maruyama (US 10916827) 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 HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST. 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, DAMEON LEVI can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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. /HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603425
COUPLER AND RELATED METHOD, MODULE AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597715
Direct Radiating Phased Array Antenna Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597704
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING ANTENNA MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592699
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586916
LOCATION INFORMATION FROM A RECEIVER IN A WIRELESS NETWORK
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 673 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