Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/235,911

ROUTING METHOD FOR CIRCUIT BOARD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 21, 2023
Priority
Oct 04, 2022 — TW 111137621
Examiner
GARBOWSKI, LEIGH M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
PEGATRON Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
655 granted / 746 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
759
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 746 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “301” (see, for example, page 4, line 31; Table 1); “302” (see, for example, page 4, line 32; Table 1); “301 to 310” (see, for example, page 5, line 2; Table 1) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Fig. 4 depicts virtual grid points Vg which are described as provided on each virtual path [see, for example, page 6, lines 9-19]. As per claim 1, the claimed step of providing a plurality of via holes on the virtual grid points [for example, lines 20-25] recites “the via hole of each trace is located on the virtual path corresponding to” [for example, lines 21-22, 23]; as per claim 7, “the corresponding via hole” [for example, line 3]; as per claim 9, “the via hole” [for example, line 4]; and as per claim 10, the corresponding via hole [for example, line 2]. However, the subject matter disclosed for the via hole so corresponding, or the corresponding via hole, raises doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing because it is not conclusive how via holes correspond. Taking FIG. 5A as exemplary, the subject matter is not properly described for how via hole 408 was determined to be where it is depicted, in other words, it is not properly described how or why via hole 408 is located as depicted instead of, for example, one or more virtual grid point(s) to the right. Merely disclosing that the traces cannot be interleaved before or after layer switching [for example, page 8], or that they correspond, does not properly describe the result obtained. How is layer switching determined or otherwise obtained? Taking FIG. 7D as an exemplary result, there is no subject matter disclosed that describes how each of the via holes 401-410 are determined other than merely “corresponding.” Thus, the claimed subject matter is not properly described and consequently raises doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. [Note: although not claimed there may also be questions regarding possession of a setting module (for example, page 6), a calculation module (for example, page 7), a classification and execution module (for example, page 7)]. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, OHTSUKA et al. [US 2013/0031525 A1] at (entire document), particularly paragraph [0069]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEIGH M GARBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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. /LEIGH M GARBOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681379
CORNER ROUNDING METHOD OF OPC PATTERN BASED ON DEEP LEARNING, AND OPC METHOD AND MASK MANUFACTURING METHOD INCLUDING THE CORNER ROUNDING METHOD
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12657497
MICROMOTION AND STRAY FIELD COMPENSATION OF A TRAPPED ION CHAIN
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12639501
Systems and Methods for Floating Point to Quantized Grid Sampling
2y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631956
MASK FABRICATION EFFECTS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL MASK SIMULATIONS USING FEATURE IMAGES
3y 7m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12619810
CHIP STRUCTURE WITH STEGANOGRAPHIC FILL SHAPE PATTERN
3y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.4%)
2y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 746 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