Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/281,079

COATING AGENT MANUFACTURING KIT, COATING AGENT, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTRONIC SUBSTRATE AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT MODULE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
TSO, STANLEY
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
373 granted / 488 resolved
+8.4% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
520
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 488 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 . Response to Amendment Claim 15 is canceled. Therefore, the 112 rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn. Applicant’s response filed on 2/27/2026 regarding the notice of a non-responsive amendment is persuasive and this notice is hereby withdrawn. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. This application includes one drawing – Fig. 1, reproduced below. PNG media_image1.png 415 570 media_image1.png Greyscale The reference numbers are identified as: electronic substrate 1; circuit board 2; solder part 3; coating film 4; electronic device 5. The drawings do not show the features of: “the coating agent comprising hollow particles” as recited in claim 18. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 does not comprise hollow particles. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “disposing, in a mold, the electronic component on which the coating film is formed and performing injection molding to seal, with a thermoplastic resin, the electronic component on which the coating film is formed” as recited in claim 18. For example, Fig. 1 does not show a mold or thermoplastic resin. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “wherein a content of the hollow particles in the region having a thickness of 1/2 of the coating film from the outer surface to the inside of the coating film is larger than a content of the hollow particles in the region having a thickness of 1/2 of the coating film from the inner surface to the outside of the coating film, the inner surface of the coating film being a surface of the coating film on the conductive bonding part side and the outer surface of the coating film being a surface of the coating film on the side opposite from the conductive bonding part side” as recited in claim 20. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 that has a single thickness and does not comprise different regions having a thickness of 1/2 of the coating film 4, or that the coating film 4 comprises hollow particles. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “the coating film includes a first layer and a second layer, a content of the hollow particles is less than 1.0 wt% in 100 wt% of the first layer, and a content of the hollow particles is 1.0 wt% or more in 100 wt% of the second layer” as recited in claim 21. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 is a single layer with no hollow particle content. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “wherein in the coating film, the first layer is positioned closer to the solder part than the second layer is” as recited in claim 22. Stated differently, Fig. 1 does not show two layers of coating films 4. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 is a single layer. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “the hollow particles, . . . when the balloon particles are contained in the coating agent, a content of the balloon particles is 0.5 wt% or more and 50 wt% or less in 100 wt% of the coating agent, and when the porous hollow particles are contained in the coating agent, a content of the porous hollow particles is 5 wt% or more and 40 wt% or less in 100 wt% of the coating agent” as recited in claim 25. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 does not comprise balloon or hollow particles. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “the hollow particles include balloon particles and porous hollow particles, a content of the balloon particles is 0.5 wt % or more and 10 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent, and a content of the porous hollow particles is 5 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent” as recited in claim 26. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 does not comprise balloon or hollow particles. Also, the drawings do not show the features of: “wherein the hollow particles have a hollow rate of 40 vol % or more and 99 vol % or less” as recited in claim 27. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the coating film 4 does not comprise hollow particles. These features of claims 18, 20-22 and 25-28 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Miller” (US 2014/0345923) in view of “Nall” (US 2007/0121326). Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses 18. A method for producing an electronic component module, the method comprising: a step of preparing an electronic component in which an electronic device is mounted on a circuit board and the circuit board and the electronic device are electrically connected to each other by a conductive bonding part (Figs. 1B, 3, [0016], [0020]; the circuit board 140 includes various interconnected circuits that are electrically connected to each other by solder); a step of disposing a coating agent on a surface of the electronic component to cover at least the conductive bonding part, the coating agent comprising hollow particles and a curable compound curable with ultraviolet rays, heat, or moisture (Figs. 1B, 3, [0016], [0020]; the solder mask 360 is disposed on the surface of the electronic component to cover the solder, the solder mask 360 includes epoxy 365 which is a curable compound curable with ultraviolet rays, heat, or moisture, and the solder mask 360 includes hollow glass micro-ballons 370); a step of forming a coating film by curing the coating agent (Figs. 1B, 3, [0016], [0020]; the solder mask 360 is a coating film formed by curing the epoxy 365); and a step of the electronic component on which the coating film is formed, to seal with a thermoplastic resin, the electronic component on which the coating film is formed (Figs. 1B, 3, [0016], [0020]; the solder mask 365 is formed to seal with the epoxy resin, the electronic component on which the coating film is formed). Miller does not disclose a step of disposing, in a mold, and performing injection molding. Nall discloses a step of disposing, in a mold, and performing injection molding (Figs. 2A-2C, [0028]-[0029], [0039]; electronic components are disposed in the mold 40, 42 and insert injection molding is performed with the molding material 56 injected into the mold 40, 42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Miller’s method with Nall’s insert injection molding method in order to reduce the cost, weight, and bulk of the assembly, as suggested by Nall at [0005] and [0008]. Regarding claim 19, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller discloses 19. The method for producing an electronic component module according to claim 18, wherein the conductive bonding part is a solder part (Figs. 1B, 3, [0016], [0020]; the conductive bonding part is a solder part). Regarding claim 25, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller discloses 25. The method for producing an electronic component module according to claim 18, wherein the hollow particles are balloon particles or porous hollow particles (Fig. 3, [0019]; the solder mask material includes hollow glass micro-ballons), when the balloon particles are contained in the coating agent, a content of the balloon particles is 0.5 wt% or more and 50 wt% or less in 100 wt% of the coating agent, and when the porous hollow particles are contained in the coating agent, a content of the porous hollow particles is 5 wt% or more and 40 wt% or less in 100 wt% of the coating agent (Fig. 3, [0019]; a content of the hollow glass micro-ballons is 30%). Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Nall and “Yamakido” (JPH07232131). Regarding claim 24, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller does not disclose the limitations of claim 24. Yamakido discloses wherein the curable compound has a viscosity at 25°C of 50 mPa·s or more and 3,000 mPa·s or less, wherein a coating agent has a viscosity at 25° C. of 100 mPa·s or more and 30,000 mPa·s or less (Page 3, middle; the curable resin coating compound has a viscosity of 1000 cps or less). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Miller’s method, as modified by Nall, with Yamakido’s particles in order to produce a cured coating film formed on a molded article body made of a synthetic resin, as suggested by Yamakido at Abstract. Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Nall and “Ito” (JP2008251500. Examiner’s note: the citations of Ito are based on the English translation). Regarding claim 26, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 25, above. Miller discloses wherein the hollow particles include balloon particles (Fig. 3, [0019]; the solder mask material includes hollow glass micro-ballons). Miller does not disclose the hollow particles include balloon particles and porous hollow particles, a content of the balloon particles is 0.5 wt % or more and 10 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent, and a content of the porous hollow particles is 5 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent. Ito discloses the hollow particles include balloon particles and porous hollow particles, a content of the balloon particles is 0.5 wt % or more and 10 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent, and a content of the porous hollow particles is 5 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less in 100 wt % of the coating agent (page 4, top; the fillers 5 and 6 have a mass ratio of 10:90 to 70:30 with respect to the binder, and the ratio of the fillers 5 and 6 are blended at a mass ratio of 1:9 to 9:1. Therefore, the fillers 5 and 6 can have a mass ratio of 40% with filler 5 at 4% and filler 6 at 36%). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Miller’s method, as modified by Nall, with Ito’s particles in order to produce a coating agent with high reliability, as suggested by Ito at Abstract. Regarding claim 27, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller does not disclose the limitations of claim 27. Ito discloses wherein the hollow particles have a hollow rate of 40 vol % or more and 99 vol % or less (Page 5, bottom; the hollow silica fine particles have a hollow rate of 60%). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Miller’s method, as modified by Nall, with Ito’s particles in order to produce a coating agent with high reliability, as suggested by Ito at Abstract. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Nall and “Nakamura” (JP2011075786. Examiner’s note: the citations of Nakamura are based on the English translation). Regarding claim 28, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller does not disclose the limitations of claim 28. Nakamura discloses wherein the hollow particles contain polyacrylonitrile or an acrylic resin (Page 2, top; the hollow particles are acrylic and epoxy compounds). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Miller’s method, as modified by Nall, with Nakamura’s particles in order to produce a cured composition material superior in heat resistant crack and workability, as suggested by Nakamura at Abstract. Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Nall and “Wu” (US 2021/0195814). Regarding claim 29, Miller in view of Nall discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above. Miller does not disclose the limitations of claim 29. Wu discloses 10. The coating agent according to claim 4, wherein the curable compound includes a first curable compound curable with ultraviolet rays ([0028]; the epoxy compound is photo-curable using ultraviolet rays). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Miller’s method, as modified by Nall, with Wu’s photo-curable epoxy in order to have an advantage of being environmentally friendly without traditional drying where volatile solvents evaporate into the immediate environment, as suggested by Wu at [0028]. Regarding claim 30, Miller in view of Nall and Wu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 29, above. Miller does not disclose the limitations of claim 30. Wu discloses wherein the first curable compound is curable with ultraviolet rays and curable with heat or moisture ([0028]; the epoxy compound is curable with ultraviolet rays and with heat or moisture). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20-23 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, and if the drawings objections (see above) are cured. 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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm. 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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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. /STANLEY TSO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 21, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
May 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 27, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597536
SUBSEA CABLE SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598694
CIRCUIT BOARD AND ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592077
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OCCUPANCY PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588351
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582015
TERMINAL STRUCTURE AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 488 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