Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/483,559

COATED-SUBSTRATE SENSING AND CRAZING MITIGATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 23, 2021
Examiner
BAND, MICHAEL A
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Advanced Energy Industries Inc.
OA Round
6 (Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
373 granted / 833 resolved
-20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +55% interview lift
Without
With
+55.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
888
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 833 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naradate et al (US 2016/0056026) in view of Kieres et al (US 6,600,323) and Klein et al (US 9,613,784). With respect to claims 6, 8, and 10-11, Naradate discloses in fig. 1 a method for processing a substrate [1] by moving the substrate [1] on a carrier [10] through each of a plurality of deposition chambers [117]-[121],[123]-[124],[126]-[127],[129] of a substrate coating system (Abstract; para 0025-0028), wherein each deposition chamber [117]-[121],[123]-[124],[126]-[127],[129] deposits a corresponding layer (e.g. adhesion layer, soft magnetic layer, seed layer, interlayer, magnetic layer, and protective film) (para 0025). Fig. 8 depicts one deposition chamber [200A] of the deposition chambers [117]-[121],[123]-[124],[126]-[127],[129] (para 0032 and 0060), the deposition chamber [200A] having a measurement electrode [216b] connected with detector [216] for monitoring a potential (i.e. voltage) between holder (i.e. carrier) [10] and sputter target [453] in a non-contact manner as the substrate [1] moves relative to the measurement electrode [216b] and detector [216] (para 0065-0066); fig. 8 also depicts the substrate [1] having a surface that faces the sputter target [453] that is also monitored by the measuring electrodes [216b] and detector [216] (para 0048), where the surface would have one or more layers from the deposition chambers [117]-[121],[123]-[124],[126]-[127],[129] the substrate [1] has been processed in previously. Thus the measuring electrode [216b] and detector [216] also then monitor a voltage at the surface for the one or more layers in the non-contact manner. Naradate further suggests the monitoring with the detector [216] includes a voltmeter for measuring the potential (i.e. voltage) (para 0040), thus the monitoring via the measuring electrodes [216b] and detector [216] in the non-contact manner also includes a voltmeter; thus the monitoring uses a non-contact voltmeter between the carrier [10] and sputter target that also monitors the voltage for the one or more layers on the surface of the substrate [1]. However Naradate is limited in that while the voltage is monitored on the substrate with the non-contact voltmeter, the non-contact voltmeter specifically being a non-contact electrostatic voltmeter is not suggested. Kieres teaches a sensor for a non-contacting electrostatic detector of voltage (i.e. non-contacting electrostatic voltmeter) (Abstract; col. 7, lines 13-15), wherein the non-contacting electrostatic voltmeter is used for measuring voltage levels or electrostatic charge buildup during methods of plastic film or semiconductor manufacturing (similar to the method of Naradate) to avoid contamination or destruction through electrostatic discharge or arcing events (col. 1, lines 6-31). Kieres cites the advantages of the non-contacting electrostatic voltmeter as producing high accuracy, fast speed, and low noise measurements in multiple point electrostatic charge build-up monitoring systems to avoid the discharge or arcing events (col. 1, lines 25-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the non-contacting electrostatic voltmeter of Kieres as the non-contact voltmeter of Naradate to gain the advantages of producing high accuracy, fast speed, and low noise measurements in multiple point electrostatic charge build-up monitoring systems to avoid contamination or destruction through electrostatic discharge or arcing events. However the combination of references Naradate and Kieres is further limited in that while Naradate suggests the monitoring is for any voltage value (e.g. maximum, minimum, etc.) (para 0049), specifics of the monitoring (e.g. voltage saturation, arc management system, and determining impedance) are not suggested. Klein teaches in fig. 1 a method of monitoring voltage on a workpiece (i.e. disk substrate) [12] via detection module [32] connected to a power supply [22] while depositing a layer via sputtering from a target [18] (abstract; col. 3, lines 33-49; col. 5, lines 33-40), wherein the detection module [32] uses sensed voltage (i.e. monitored voltage) to detect impedance of a plasma between electrodes of the target [18] and an anode [20] (col. 5, lines 33-49), with the plasma containing material from the target [18] that forms the layer on the disk substrate [12] (col. 1, lines 28-31; col. 2, lines 57-67), thus by detecting impedance of the plasma also detects impedance of the material of the layer. Klein further teaches in fig. 3 that when a trip voltage (i.e. saturation voltage) of the plasma (and thus the material of the layer) exceeds a threshold during the monitoring of the method, an arc management system is triggered of the power supply [22] (fig. 3; col. 5, lines 54-67; col. 6, lines 1-35). Klein cites the advantage of the specifics of the monitoring as identifying and ameliorating an arc condition (col. 6, lines 28-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the specifics of the monitoring (e.g. voltage saturation, arc management system, and determining impedance) taught by Klein into the method of the monitoring of the combination of references to gain the advantage of identifying and ameliorating an arc condition. Response to Arguments Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-7 filed 7/19/2025 are addressed below. 112 Rejections Claim 6 has been amended to clarify that the “substrate coating system”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn. 103 rejections On p. 6, Applicant argues that the combination of Naradate, Kieres, and Klein does not teach claim 6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Naradate teaches a non-contact voltmeter (included with measuring electrodes [216b] and detector [216]) that measures voltage on a substrate during and after deposition of layers thereon in plural chambers (para 0046-0048); thus Naradate teaches monitoring voltage on the substrate that has at least one layer that is being deposited or has been deposited, which also then monitors the voltage of the at least one layer on the substrate. Kieres is cited to teach the benefits of having the non-contacting voltmeter of Naradate be the non-contact electrostatic voltmeter in order to produce high accuracy, fast speed, and low noise measurements in multiple point electrostatic charge build-up monitoring systems to avoid the discharge or arcing events (col. 1, lines 25-62); and Klein teaches that during sputtering (such as the sputtering of Naradate), to monitor voltage to the substrate to control power in order to avoid arcing (as desired by Kieres) during the sputtering (fig. 3; col. 5, lines 33-67; col. 6, lines 1-35). An arcing condition is a well known problem to one of ordinary skill in the art of sputtering (see previous explanation on p. 7-8 Office Action mailed 4/21/2025). As such, the combination of references Naradate, Kieres, and Klein has Naradate teaching to use the non-contact voltmeter (e.g. non-contact electrostatic voltmeter of Kieres) to monitor voltage of the substrate having at least one layer thereon, and to trigger an arc management system (suggested by Kieres and Klein) during the monitoring of the voltage (and the at least one layer of Naradate) if the voltage of Naradate exceeds a voltage threshold to avoid undesirable arcing during sputtering. Claim 6 does not recite a limitation of “impedance” as argued by Applicant, thus Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope to claim 6. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. /MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 23, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 17, 2023
Response Filed
Aug 17, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 13, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 12, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 31, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584108
METHOD FOR SEPARATING MIGRASOMES FROM MACROPHAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577648
METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PHYSICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION METAL FILM ADHESION TO SUBSTRATES AND SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580168
SPUTTERING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571085
NOBLE METAL-TRANSITION METAL-BASED NANO-CATALYST THIN FILM AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548746
PHYSICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+55.2%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 833 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month