Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/776,806

METHOD OF DEPOSITING MATERIAL ON A SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
May 13, 2022
Examiner
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dyson Technology Limited
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
782 granted / 1241 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1294
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1241 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Status of claims: Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 26 Claims 19-25 and 27-29 are withdrawn based on the previous election/restriction set forth in the office action of March 6, 2025. 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 1-5, 7-18 and 26 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. Claim 1, line 13, 14, “the target” should be “the more than one targets”. Claim 1, lines 14, 15, “the system” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 2, line 2, is indefinite because “the mean free path” should be “the theoretical mean free path”. Claim 2, line 2, “the system” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9, line 1, is indefinite because “the process” should be “the method”. Claim 9, line 2, is indefinite because “the chamber pressure” should be “a chamber pressure”. Claim 9, line 3, “the igniting” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be replaced by “ignition” Claim 9, line 3, “the remote plasma” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “the plasma remote from the more than one sputter targets suitable for plasma sputtering”? Claim 9, line 4, “the deposition process” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “the method”? Claim 9, line 4, “said value” should be “said constant value”. Claim 10, line 1, “the sputtering” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “generating the sputtered material”? Claim 10, line 2, “the flow rate” should be “a flow rate”. Claim 10, line 3, “the deposition process” lacks antecedent basis. Should this be “the method”? Claim 10, line 3, 4, “said value” should be “said constant value”. Claim 12, line 2, is indefinite because the phrase “may be between” is unclear. Is it between? “May be” is confusing. Claim 14, line 2, is indefinite because the limitation of “above 4.5e-3 mBar” is unclear. Should this be “ between 4.5 e-3 mBar and 1e-2 mBar” to be clear since it depends on claim 9 which has the broader range in it. Claim 15, line 1, “the crystallite size” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 15, line 2, “the film” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16, lines 1, 2, “the range of crystallite sizes” lacks antecedent basis, Claim 16, line 2, “the average crystallite size” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16, line 3, “the film” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17, line 1, “the step” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17, line 2, “the sputter deposition technique” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17, lines 4 and 5, “on the surface opposite to said surface on which material is deposited” should be “on a surface opposite to a surface on which material is deposited”. Claim 18, line 1, “the deposition rate” lack antecedent basis. Should this be “a deposition rate”? Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5, 7-18, 26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 26 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including moving the substrate using a drum, the drum having a center of rotation; moving the more than one targets about the center of rotation with an angular velocity slower than an angular velocity of the drum. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous prior art rejections and the previous obviousness type double patenting rejections. New 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been made. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off. 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. /RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 RMJanuary 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2022
Application Filed
May 13, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Dec 16, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603264
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING TOOL AND METHODS OF OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595548
DOPED NICKEL OXIDE TARGET AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584217
TRAY ASSEMBLIES FOR PRECURSOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580157
Grid Assembly for Plasma Processing Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577638
CASTABLE ALUMINUM ALLOYS FOR WAFER HANDLING CHAMBERS IN SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1241 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