Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/853,176

ELECTRONIC COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 01, 2024
Examiner
MILLER, BETHANY MACKENZIE
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nihon Parkerizing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
78 granted / 140 resolved
-9.3% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
188
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.8%
+22.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 140 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP 2019/116552 A). Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi discloses an anionic epoxy resin identical to that recited in the present claims, having a structural unit represented by Formula (1), at least one of the structural units represented by Formula (2) and Formula (3), and at least one of the structural units represented by Formula (4) and Formula (5): PNG media_image1.png 378 168 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein, in Formula (1), R1 represents a structure represented by the following Formula (1a), (2a), or (3a); in Formula (2), R7 represents a structure represented by the following Formula (4a) or (5a); in Formula (3), R8 represents a structure represented by the following Formula (6a) or (7a); in Formula (4), R9 represents a structure represented by the following Formula (8a) or (9a); and, in Formula (5), R10 represents a structure represented by the following Formula (10a) or (11a): PNG media_image2.png 156 454 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 186 540 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 150 510 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 100 438 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 100 468 media_image6.png Greyscale wherein, in Formula (1a), R2 represents a single bond, C(CH3)2, CH(CH3), CH2, S, O, or SO2; in Formula (2a), R3 to R6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, an alkylcarbonyl group, an alkoxy group, or an alkoxycarbonyl group; in Formula (5a), R17 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group; in Formula (8a), R11 to R13 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, or an alkoxy group; and, in Formula (10a), R14 and R15 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, or an alkoxy group (paras 0007-0013). Kobayashi further discloses the anionic epoxy resin or salt thereof may be used to form a film (para 0014, 0061) applied to a metal surface (paras 0055, 0057), including in electronic components (para 0062). Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. While Kobayashi discloses that electronic components comprising the anionic epoxy resin film on a metal surface as claimed (para 0062), there is no explicit disclosure of the electronic components which constitutes a motor as claimed. However, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Kobayashi discloses electronic components comprising the anionic epoxy resin film on a metal surface as presently claimed, it is clear that the electronic components would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. constituting a motor, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0284850 A1). Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kobayashi further discloses the anionic epoxy resin forms a film having excellent insulation properties and edge cover properties, and which can be expected to have excellent corrosion resistance (para 0014). It can be used in electrical components for electrical insulation (para 0062). Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose the electrical components constitute a motor as claimed. Lee discloses an insulating heat-radiating coating composition including a coating layer-forming component including a main resin and an insulating heat-radiating filler (Abstract), where the main resin may comprise one or more glycidyl ether-type epoxy resins (paras 0050-0051). The coating composition is applied to a metal substrate (paras 0106-0107), which is an electronic component such as a bus bar or an engine cooling apparatus (para 0129). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the anionic epoxy resin as one of the glycidyl ether-type epoxy resins of Lee, in a coating for a metal substrate, which is an electronic component such as a bus bar or an engine cooling apparatus. Doing so would form a film having excellent insulation properties and edge cover properties, and which can be expected to have excellent corrosion resistance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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. /BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787 /CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604540
BACK PANEL OF SOLAR CELL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584011
EPOXY RESIN COMPOSITION, GAS BARRIER LAMINATE, AND PACKAGING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581593
PREPREG, AND METAL-CLAD LAMINATED BOARD AND WIRING SUBSTRATE OBTAINED USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565582
RESIN COMPOSITION AND METAL CLAD SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12522688
PULTRUSION WITH EXTRUDED GASKET FOAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 140 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