Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 17/648,577

ANNEALING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 21, 2022
Priority
Jun 24, 2021 — provisional 63/214,499
Examiner
CRAWFORD EASON, LATANYA N
Art Unit
2813
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Lid
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
731 granted / 932 resolved
+10.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
977
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 932 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4, 32 & 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of claim 1 including the susceptor material that has a same dissipation factor as the wafer lacks support in the specification. The specification states [0029]: In some embodiments, the material of the susceptor 120 may have a dissipation factor or permittivity that is approximately the same as that of the wafer 50. In some cases, having a susceptor 120 and a wafer 50 with similar dissipation factors can allow for a more uniform EM field distribution during a MWA process. Examiner notes that “approximately the same “ and “similar” are not equivalent to the term ‘”same”, therefore there is no support for the claimed limitation. 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 7, 9-11, 36 and 37 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. With regards to claim 7, the limitation “wherein the semiconductor wafer fully overlaps a top surface of the susceptor” …[and] sidewalls of the susceptor protrude a first distance beyond edges of the semiconductor wafer” is unclear. If the semiconductor wafer fully overlaps a top surface of the susceptor, it is unclear how the sidewalls of the susceptor can simultaneously protrude a first distance beyond edges of the semiconductor wafer? Appropriate correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21,22,26,27,31,33, & 34 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein a second microwave source is coupled to a sidewall of the process chamber in combination of the remaining elements of the claim was not found in prior art. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-7,9-11,21-22,26,27,31-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM. 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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. /LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Jun 16, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 30, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740211
COMPONENT WITH IMPROVED CONNECTION STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A COMPONENT
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12740213
LED LIGHT SOURCE MODULE
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12733319
IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12727291
DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12721126
Semiconductor Device and Method of Manufacture
4y 3m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+0.4%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 932 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