Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/601,197

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 11, 2024
Priority
Sep 15, 2021 — JP 2021-150653 +1 more
Examiner
STONER, KILEY SHAWN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Ngk Insulators Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
1164 granted / 1440 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1486
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1440 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 "circuit board", "a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the positive electrode layer", and "a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the negative electrode layer" of claim 6 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 § 112 Claim 6 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 6 it is unclear what the "closer" language is referring to. In order for a positive or negative electrode terminal to be "closer" to a positive or negative electrode layer there must be a direct comparison of distance between two different objects. The claim language fails to set forth what the positive or negative electrode terminals are closer than. 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) 1-5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura et al. (WO2019/221139A1) (hereafter Yura) in view of Tutorial: Soldering Li-ion Battery Cells (hereafter Liang). Note that citations to Yura have been made with respect to US2021/0043919A1, which is the English equivalent of WO2019/221139A1. With respect to claim 1, Yura teaches a method for producing a circuit board assembly, comprising connecting a lithium ion secondary battery to a circuit board by reflow soldering, wherein the lithium ion secondary battery comprises: a positive electrode layer (12); a negative electrode layer (16); a separator (20) interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer; an electrolyte (20); and an exterior body (24) having a closed space accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, the separator and the electrolyte (paragraph 57; and figure 1). With respect to claims 1-3, Yura does not teach the lithium-ion secondary battery has a state of charge (SOC) of 30 to 100%, 35 to 100%, or 70 to 100% during the reflow soldering. However, Liang teaches discharging an initially charged 18650 lithium-ion secondary battery (Li-Ion battery) to 3V before soldering to reduce danger while maintaining the life span of the battery (page 3). Since the voltage of a 18650 Li-Ion battery is 3.7-4.2V, the SOC during soldering is intrinsically 30 to 100%, 35 to 100%, or 70 to 100%. Thus, at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the process of discharging the battery to a state of charge (SOC) of 30 to 100%, 35 to 100%, or 70 to 100% before soldering as taught by Liang with the process of Yura in order to significantly reduce the danger of the soldering process and maintain the lifespan of the battery while allowing the battery to reach full charge quickly after the soldering process. With respect to claim 4, Yura teaches wherein reflow heating in the reflow soldering is performed at 180 to 270° C (paragraphs 12 and 31). With respect to claim 5, Yura teaches the exterior body comprises a positive electrode can (24a); a negative electrode can (24b); and a gasket (24c), wherein the positive electrode can and the negative electrode can are crimped with the gasket interposed therebetween to form the closed space (figure 1; and paragraph 57). With respect to claim 7, Yura teaches wherein the positive electrode layer is a ceramic positive electrode plate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1). With respect to claim 8, Yura teaches wherein the ceramic positive electrode plate is a lithium complex oxide sintered plate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1). With respect to claim 9, Yura teaches wherein the lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1). With respect to claim 10, Yura teaches wherein the negative electrode layer is a ceramic negative electrode plate (paragraphs 30, 46, and 48). With respect to claim 11, Yura teaches wherein the ceramic negative electrode plate is a titanium-containing sintered plate (paragraphs 30, 46, and 48). With respect to claim 12, Yura teaches wherein the titanium-containing sintered plate comprises lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide (paragraph 46; and claim 11). With respect to claim 13, Yura teaches wherein the separator is made of cellulose, polyimide, polyester, or ceramics selected from the group consisting of MgO, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, ZrO.sub.2, SiC, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, AlN, and cordierite (paragraph 54; and claim 14). With respect to claim 14, Yura teaches the electrolyte is provided in the form of an electrolytic solution, and the electrolytic solution is a solution containing lithium borofluoride (LiBF.sub.4) in a non-aqueous solvent consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of γ-butyrolactone (GBL), ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (paragraphs 54-55; and claim 15). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura and Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US2016/0072115A1) (hereafter Kim). With respect to claim 6, Yura and Liang do not teach a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body proximate to the positive electrode layer; and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body proximate to the negative electrode layer, wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is connected to the circuit board by the reflow solder. However, Kim teaches a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the positive electrode layer; and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the negative electrode layer, wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is connected to the circuit board by the reflow solder (figures 7A-8B; paragraphs 6, 21, and 22; and claim 1). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the process of soldering the positive and negative electrode terminals to a circuit board as taught by Kim in the collective process of Yura and Liang in order to include circuit protection and increase the service life of the battery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703036
SELF CORRECTING OVEN TECHNOLOGY
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12697671
SOLDER REFLOW APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 6m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691361
A PADEL COURT CONSTRUCTION
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695111
WIRE BONDING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12690277
SOLDER PASTE FOR MODULE FABRICATION OF SOLAR CELLS
4y 8m to grant Granted Jul 21, 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
81%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+15.4%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1440 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