Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/854,531

ELECTRICAL MEDICAL DEVICE COMPRISING AN ANTENNA

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 05, 2024
Examiner
SALIH, AWAT M
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Aesculap AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
380 granted / 446 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
459
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 446 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 18-24, 26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnekenburger et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0201651, hereby referred Schnekenburger). Regarding claim 18, Schnekenburger discloses, A medical table unit comprising (figures 1-2 and see paragraphs [0010]-[0011] for disclosing medical device): a closed housing containing a front plate (housing 2 and front plate 14); and a wireless communication unit configured in the closed housing (see paragraph [0031], the housing side control electronics which communicate with the external control device), with at least one antenna (antenna 36), the closed housing containing at least one EMC-proof housing portion (housing region without space 22, see paragraphs [0028] and [0035]) and at least one EMC- permitting housing portion (region of the apace 22 directed toward the front wall), the at least one antenna configured in the at least one EMC-permitting housing portion in an interior of the closed housing (see figure 2 and paragraph [0032]). Regarding claim 19, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is shielded in a direction toward a housing interior with a shielding sheet (figures 1-2, see paragraph [0028] for disclosing shielding). Regarding claim 20, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna and the wireless communication unit are connected to each other by a cable guided through a hole in the shielding sheet (see paragraph [0040] for disclosing cable for the antenna 36 and the communication device). Regarding claim 21, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one EMC-permitting housing portion is configured in a frame of the closed housing and the at least one antenna is configured in a frame indentation (figures 1-2, region of the apace 22 directed toward the front wall and antenna 36). Regarding claim 22, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is configured in a front frame portion of the frame below the front plate (figures 1-2 and paragraph [0029], antenna 36, housing 2 and wall 14). Regarding claim 23, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is configured to be planar and is aligned substantially normal to the front plate (figure 2, antenna 36 and plate 14). Regarding claim 24, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is configured in a rear-side frame portion which surrounds a rear side of the closed housing opposite the front plate, and the rear-side frame portion is configured at a greater distance from the front plate than the rear side (figure 2, antenna 36 in the housing 2 in a rear wall 30 and 28 and a distance from front plate 14). Regarding claim 26, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is configured to be planar and is aligned substantially parallel to the front plate (figures 1-2, antenna 36 and plate 14). Regarding claim 30, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the closed housing includes a bottom forming a stand space of the medical table unit (figures 1-2, housing 2 and see paragraph [0026]). Regarding claim 31, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein: the closed housing contains a cover plate, and the front plate is arranged between the cover plate and the bottom (see figure 1, housing 2 and the walls or plates from all sides. See paragraph [0026]). Regarding claim 32, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein: the medical table unit contains an operating or display unit in the front plate, and the at least one antenna is configured on an inner surface of the front plate facing the interior of the closed housing (figures 1-2 and paragraph [0026], housing 2, antenna 36 and display 18). Regarding claim 33, Schnekenburger discloses, wherein the at least one antenna is configured above the operating or display unit in the front plate (figures 1-2, antenna 36 and display 18 and front plate 14). 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 25, 27-29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnekenburger et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0201651, hereby referred Schnekenburger) Regarding claim 25, Schnekenburger does not disclose, wherein the frame is made of plastic. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a plastic material in order to have a freedom of design, low weight, and cost-effectiveness, especially as radomes or structural supports, while specialized conductive plastics provide built-in EMI shielding for EMC by absorbing radiation, preventing interference, and simplifying designs compared to metal, benefiting performance and manufacturing. Key benefits include vibration damping, corrosion resistance, complex molding, and reduced signal loss for high-frequency radomes, protecting antennas without heavily degrading signal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 27, Schnekenburger does not disclose, wherein the at least one antenna comprises a first antenna and a second antenna. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an additional antenna in order to provide a better antenna’s characteristics such as directionality and gain, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 28, Schnekenburger does not disclose, wherein the first antenna is arranged at an angle of 90° relative to the second antenna. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an additional antenna in order to provide a better antenna’s characteristics such as directionality and gain, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the first antenna is arranged at an angle of 90° relative to the second antenna in order to provide a better antenna’s characteristics such as directionality and gain, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 29, Schnekenburger does not disclose, wherein: the at least one EMC-permitting housing portion comprises a first EMC-permitting housing portion and a second EMC-permitting housing portion (see figure 2 and paragraph [0032]). Schnekenburger does not disclose, The first antenna is arranged on the first EMC-permitting housing portion, and the second antenna is arranged on the second EMC-permitting housing portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an additional antenna in order to provide a better antenna’s characteristics such as directionality and gain, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the first antenna is arranged on the first EMC-permitting housing portion, and the second antenna is arranged on the second EMC-permitting housing portion in order to provide a better antenna’s characteristics such as directionality and gain, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 34, Schnekenburger does not disclose, wherein the front plate is made of glass and the at least one antenna is firmly bonded to the front plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a glass material for the purpose of robust shells, hand having invisibility/aesthetics, excellent signal transparency, durability, weather resistance, lightweight design, and miniaturization, making them ideal for 5G, IoT, smart buildings, and automotive applications, though traditional glass-mounts need careful tuning, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwarz et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0120949, Frischke et al. US Patent No. 10944168. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWAT M SALIH whose telephone number is (571)270-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, 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. /AWAT M SALIH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592474
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING METAL ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592480
VEHICLE ANTENNA DEVICE AND ANTENNA MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586893
Methods and Systems for Mitigating Interference with a Nearby Satellite
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580322
REFLECTIVE BEAM-STEERING METASURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562473
LGA- AND BGA-BASED PHASED-ARRAY MILLIMETER-WAVE ANTENNAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 446 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