Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/323,131

METHOD FOR PRODUCING WIRING CIRCUIT BOARD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 24, 2023
Examiner
TRINH, MINH N
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nitto Denko Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1286 granted / 1499 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1499 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 . 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. Therefore, the claimed subject matter such as “claim 1 “(entirely). must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is suggested drawing for claims in method formats (e.g., see sample below). PNG media_image1.png 330 480 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Since the scope of the claims clearly directed to the “process of making of a wiring board” (see preamble of claims), however, appears that no “wiring circuit board” has been produced at the end of the process of the base claim 1. Thus, claims considered to be incomplete. “A method for producing a wiring circuit board comprising:” (claim 1 preamble) should be updated to active method format such as: -- “A method for producing a wiring circuit board comprising sequentially order steps of:” -- many terms or phrases is/are awkwardly worded in claims such as: “a first step of” (claim 1, line 2); “after the first step, a second step of” (claim 1, line 5);” and after the second step, a third step of” (claim 1, line 7) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested in the preamble of base claim 1 line 1 above. “in the first step” (claim 2, line 5) should be updated to: -- “in the overlapping an assembly sheet”--, as so to reflect changes as suggested above. “in the second step” (claim 2, line 7) should be: --“in the separating the plurality of wiring circuit boards”--, to reflect changes as suggested in base claim 1 set forth above. It is also suggested that claims 3-10 should be carefully rewritten or updated to reflect changes as suggested above. “in the first step” (claims 11-12, line 2) should be updated to: -- “in the overlapping an assembly sheet”--, as so to reflect changes as suggested above. “in the second step” (claims 11-12, line 6) should be: --“in the separating the plurality of wiring circuit boards”--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-12 are 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. It is unclear as to exactly what method applicant intends to pursue since the scope of the claims directed to “method for producing a wiring circuit board” (see preamble) and appears no active forming method existed in the body of the claim only steps of: “overlapping” and “ separating “ and “conveying” occurrence in lines 2, 5, 7 of claim 1 which do not seem to be a part of the making of “the wiring board”, since it is not known as to how the wiring is formed? after all process steps of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 considered to be incomplete. “a wiring board” (claims 2-12, line 1) should be: --“the wiring board” --. The phrase: “a plurality of wiring circuit boards” occurrence in many places (see claim 1, line 2) does not agree with that (single) “wiring board” in the preamble of claim 1. The phrases: “after the first step, a second step of separating the plurality of wiring circuit boards from the supporting portion by cutting; and after the second step, a third step of conveying the assembly sheet including the plurality of wiring circuit boards separated from the supporting portion, while being supported by the supporting sheet.” (claim 1, lines 5-9) is awkwardly worded and is not understood because no inventive method features associated with the making of the claimed “method of making the wiring circuit board”. (Note that there is no mechanical connection between the boards and the supporting, therefore at this point of the process which is no need for separating the support sheet from the assembly sheet. Further, the conveying step is not clear as to how conveying the assembly sheet would facilitate the fabrication process for no clear reason). “is cut” (claim 2, line 7) is not positive method limitation. The use of active method step such as (e.g., cutting the joint . . .) “the wiring circuit board” (claims 5-6) is not clear whether this directed to that in the preamble or one of “the plurality of wiring circuit boards” of the claim 1, line 2? Claims 7-8 directed to structure limitations and should be updated to active method limitations instead. Also, claims above lacking of method inventive features of the making of “the wiring board” as clearly indicated in the preamble of the claims. “the plurality of opening” (claim 9, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. “are disposed”(claims 9, 11-12, line 2); “is punched”(claims 11-12, about line 6) is/are not active method limitations. The use of: (e.g., disposing . . . punching . . .). Further, it is also suggested that Applicant should carefully revise their disclosure and correct other typos in the claims and/or specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoon (WO 2005032223 A1). Yoon discloses the claimed method for producing a wiring circuit board comprising: a first step of overlapping an assembly sheet 11 including a plurality of wiring circuit boards 12 and a supporting portion supporting the plurality of wiring circuit boards, and a supporting sheet 17 for supporting the assembly sheet, in a thickness direction (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with process step s10-s30 of Fig. 2); after the first step, a second step of separating the plurality of wiring circuit boards from the supporting portion by cutting (see step s80 of Fig. 2).; and after the second step, a third step of conveying the assembly sheet including the plurality of wiring circuit boards separated from the supporting portion, while being supported by the supporting sheet (see Fig. 2, process s70-s80). Note that the second and third steps as noted above do not further limit the claimed “wiring board”(single) since no inventive method features existed in the above steps and appears that process s70-s80 discloses the separating by cutting to obtain the wiring board as claimed. PNG media_image2.png 603 608 media_image2.png Greyscale As applied to claim 2, refer to Fig. 1, which depicts opening portion 18/19 from the supporting sheet/plate 17 and connection bridges as joint 13/14 configured to cut out the wiring board from the plurality of wiring boards of the assembly sheet 11. Limitation of claims 3-4 is/are also met by the Yoon where the reinforcement plate 17 is a resin plate/sheet (see abstract or ¶ [0057]). Limitations of claims 5-6 appears to met by the above since no invention method feature in these claims only structure limitations and scope of the claim directed to method invention (see section 112 above). Claim(s) 1-6 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sasaoka et al (20210185832). Sasaoka et al discloses the claimed method for producing a wiring circuit board comprising a first step of overlapping an assembly sheet 1 including a plurality of wiring circuit boards 3 and a supporting portion 21/22 supporting the plurality of wiring circuit boards, and a supporting sheet 2 for supporting the assembly sheet, in a thickness direction (see Fig. 1); regarding to recites of:” after the first step, a second step of separating the plurality of wiring circuit boards from the supporting portion by cutting (see Fig. 3 and discussion in ¶ [0090]); and after the second step, a third step of conveying the assembly sheet including the plurality of wiring circuit boards separated from the supporting portion, while being supported by the supporting sheet” (see ¶ [0091]). Limitations of claims 2-6 are also met by the above since no method inventive features existed in these claims 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 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) 7-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon or Sasaoka et al. As applied to claims 7-9 and 10, regarding to thickness of the assembly sheet and support sheet set forth in these claims. regarding to the thickness configurations, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or form a particular thickness of the assembly sheet or supporting sheet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, Applicant(s) also refers to discussion in ¶¶ [0057-0058] of Sasaoka et al for the thickness configuration. As applied to claims 11-12, refer to Fig. 3 of the Yoon for teaching of an associated mold operatively with the method where the joint is punched by inserting the punch into the hole of the split 13, respectively. PNG media_image3.png 377 574 media_image3.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30. 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 J 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604397
A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A FORMED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603395
BATTERY MODULE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS USING VISION AND ASSEMBLY METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603337
ADJUSTING METHOD OF NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND PRODUCING METHOD OF LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY WITH REUSED ELECTRODE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603627
Method for Manufacturing Vibration Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597832
METHOD FOR LAMINATED CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1499 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