Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/023,546

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING FLEXIBLE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD AND FLEXIBLE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD MANUFACTURED BY SAME

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 27, 2023
Priority
Aug 31, 2020 — RE 10-2020-0110179 +2 more
Examiner
CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Doosan Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
608 granted / 966 resolved
-7.1% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1010
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 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. Claim 15 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. In claim 15, the phrases “the second coverlay film” and “the third laminate” lack proper antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2009/007421A1). Claims 14 and 15 are product-by-process claims. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Refer to MPEP 2113. The only structure positively required as part of the flexible printed circuit board of claim 14 is a metal foil laminated to a coverlay film having a first hole. Fig. 7 of Chen shows a metal foil 3 to which is laminated a lower coverlay 4 having a first hole (at 2; see [0004]). Regarding claim 15, the recited limitations depend on some distances that occur during manufacturing (e.g., before lamination of the third laminate). This process limitation therefore does not limit the final structure of the circuit board, because the final circuit board does not require the various recognition marks. The only structural element introduced by claim 13 is a second coverlay. Fig. 7 shows a second, upper coverlay 4. Alternatively, starting with multiple flexible printed circuit boards in tape shape, resulting from, the roll-to-roll process of Chen (Figs. 2-6; see [0047]), Chen, further discloses separating the multiple flexible printed circuit boards into individual flexible printed circuit boards (see [0047]). In obtaining the individual boards, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to separate the side regions containing the sprocket holes, to reduce the size of the circuit board, with predictable results. Regarding claim 15, the same rationale applies as above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-13 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to any claims no longer rejected. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 and 15 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. 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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112
Jul 15, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12770783
WINDING CONFIGURATION AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED STRUCTURE FOR A MEDIUM FREQUENCY TRANSFORMER
4y 7m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12763652
PRODUCTION DEVICE FOR PRODUCING A COIL OF AN ELECTRIC MACHINE
3y 6m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763316
METHOD FOR FORMING ALIGNED STRUCTURE OF GRAPHITE, METHOD FOR FABRICATING ELECTRODE FOR BATTERY HAVING ALIGNED GRAPHITE AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY HAVING ALIGNED GRAPHITE
3y 9m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12763234
MULTILAYER VARISTOR
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12745940
MEDICAL PROTO MICROELECTRODE, METHOD FOR ITS MANUFACTURE, AND USE THEREOF
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+24.9%)
3y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 966 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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