Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/798,881

ANTENNA MODULE AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 09, 2024
Examiner
LEE, WILSON
Art Unit
2844
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
564 granted / 651 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
672
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§103
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 651 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 U.S.C. 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, 8, 10, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka et al. (WO 2019/026595 in view of Coccioli et al. (6,818,985). Regarding Claim 1, Onaka et al. (WO 2019/026595) discloses an antenna module (1) comprising: a substrate (14) having a first main surface (top surface of 14) and a second main surface (bottom surface of 14) facing in opposite directions (Fig. 1A); a first radiating element (radiation electrode 11a) that is disposed along the first main surface (top surface of 14) (Fig. 1A); an electronic component (RFIC 400) that is disposed on a second main surface side (bottom surface of 14) and is electrically connected (through power supply wiring 12a) to the first radiating element (11a); and As discussed above, Onaka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose a molded body that is disposed on the second main surface side and covers the electronic component with a resin, wherein the first radiating element is disposed to straddle the substrate and the molded body. However, Coccioli et al. (6,818,985) discloses mold compound (128) that is disposed on the second main surface side (surface of substrate 102) and covers the electronic component (semiconductor die 104) with a resin (biphenyl resin) to protect semiconductor die (104) (Col. 5, lines 18-25), wherein first radiating element (antenna element 124) is disposed to straddle the substrate (102) and the molded body (128) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a mold compound of Coccioli to cover the electronic component in Onaka in order to protect the electronic component from chemical contamination or physical damage during use as taught by Coccioli. Regarding Claim 2, Onaka discloses the antenna module according to claim 1, further comprising: a second radiating element (11b) that is disposed along the first main surface (top surface of 14). Regarding Claim 3, Onaka discloses the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the first radiating element is a flat plate-shaped electrode (radiation electrode 11a, b and c are flat, see Fig. 1A). Regarding Claim 8, Onaka discloses radiating electrodes (11a, 11b and 11c) (fig. 1A) but does not particularly disclose they are same size or different size. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the radiating electrodes in a predetermined desired size in order to radiate desired level of radiation. Besides, it has been held that changing in size merely involves routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Regarding Claim 10, Onaka discloses the antenna module according to claim 1, further comprising: a ground electrode (13) that is disposed to face the first radiating element (11a), wherein the ground electrode (13) is disposed to straddle the substrate (14) and the molded body (from Coccioli). Regarding Claim 18, Onaka discloses an antenna module (1) comprising: a substrate (14) having a first main surface (top surface of 14) and a second main surface (bottom surface of 14) facing in opposite directions (fig. 1A); a plurality of first radiating elements (11a, b, c) that are disposed along the first main surface (top surface of 14); an electronic component (RFIC 400) that is disposed on a second main surface side (bottom surface of 14) and is electrically connected to the plurality of first radiating elements (11a, b, c); and As discussed above, Onaka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose a molded body that is disposed on the second main surface side and covers the electronic component with a resin, wherein each of the plurality of first radiating elements is disposed to straddle the substrate and the molded body. However, Coccioli et al. (6,818,985) discloses mold compound (128) that is disposed on the second main surface side (surface of substrate 102) and covers the electronic component (semiconductor die 104) with a resin (biphenyl resin) to protect semiconductor die (104) (Col. 5, lines 18-25), wherein first radiating element (antenna element 124) is disposed to straddle the substrate (102) and the molded body (128) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a mold compound of Coccioli to cover the electronic component in Onaka in order to protect the electronic component from chemical contamination or physical damage during use as taught by Coccioli. Regarding Claim 20, Onaka discloses a communication device comprising: the antenna module (1) according to claim 1 (See abstract). Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka et al. (WO 2019/026595 in view of Coccioli et al. (6,818,985), further in view of Eun et al. (2024/0097312). Regarding Claim 16, as discussed above, Onaka essentially discloses the second main surface (bottom surface of 14) and the electronic component (RFIC 400) but does not explicitly disclose the antenna module according to claim 1, further comprising: a circuit board that is disposed between the second main surface and the electronic component, wherein the electronic component is mounted on the circuit board. However, Eun et al. (2024/0097312) discloses an advantage of securing a wider component arrangement space on a printed circuit board (paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a circuit board to allow the electronic components and surface mount in Onaka in order to secure the components in the device and facilitate the mass production through the printed circuit board. Regarding Claim 17, as discussed above, Onaka essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the antenna module according to claim 2, further comprising: a circuit board that is disposed between the second main surface and the electronic component, wherein the electronic component is mounted on the circuit board. However, Eun et al. (2024/0097312) discloses an advantage of securing a wider component arrangement space on a printed circuit board (paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a circuit board to allow the electronic components and surface mount in Onaka in order to secure the components in the device and facilitate the mass production through the printed circuit board. Allowable subject matter Claims 4-7, 9, 11-15 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. Claim 19 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior arts of record do not render obvious, nor anticipate the combination of claimed elements including the technique of: “a plurality of second radiating elements that are disposed along the first main surface in the first direction and disposed on the substrate; an electronic component that is disposed on a second main surface side and is electrically connected to the first radiating element and the second radiating element; a molded body that is disposed on the second main surface side and covers the electronic component with a resin; and a connector that is disposed on the second main surface side at a position adjacent to the molded body in the first direction, wherein the first radiating element is disposed to straddle the substrate and the molded body, and when the substrate is viewed from a plan view in a normal direction, the first radiating element is not provided on a virtual line passing through the connector and orthogonal to the first direction, and the second radiating element is provided at a position where the virtual line extends to the first main surface.” Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603258
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586891
ANTENNA DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581583
Smart Utilization of Data Center Illumination Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581586
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IGNITING PLASMA WITHIN TUBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574011
BULK ACOUSTIC WAVE FILTER WITH SECOND HARMONIC SUPPRESSION
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
90%
With Interview (+3.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 651 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