Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/909,039

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING METHOD AND SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 02, 2022
Priority
Jun 09, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2021021848
Examiner
PHAM, THOMAS T
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hitachi Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
298 granted / 574 resolved
-13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
638
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
84.3%
+44.3% vs TC avg
§102
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 574 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
CTFR 17/909,039 CTFR 87601 DETAILED ACTION This is the Office action based on the 17909039 application filed September 2, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on February 2, 2026. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 10-15 acknowledged. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretations Claim 1 recites the limitation “the wafer having a film to be processed which contains aluminum as a typical metal element and does not contain a transition metal”. It is noted that a film may comprise a plurality of layers. For the purpose of examining the above limitation is interpreted as the claimed film may comprise a plurality of metal and non-metal layers, wherein one or more of the layers is exposed to the processing, and wherein one or more of the layers is not exposed to the processing, and wherein none of the exposed or unexposed layers contain a transition metal. This interpretation of a film is proper, and is conventional in the art, as evidenced by Hudson et al. (US. Pat. No. 10170323), which discloses “the protective film may be formed of more than one layer. For example, in some embodiments, the protective film includes at least a first sub-layer and a second sub-layer, the first and second sub-layers being deposited under different conditions. The first and second sub-layers may have different compositions in some cases. In various embodiments, the first sub-layer may include a metal nitride, a metal oxide, a metal carbide, a metal boride, or a combination thereof, and the second sub-layer may include metal that is substantially in elemental form” (Col. 2, Lines 23-33); or Mizuno et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20150362855), which discloses “A multi-layer electrode film that includes a layer of a metal material high in light reflectivity and a layer of a transparent conductive material such as ITO or indium zinc oxide may also be employed as the lower electrode 21” ([0071]); or Shiobara et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20150364716), which discloses “(a) laminated electrode film that includes a layer of a metal material having light reflectivity and a layer of a transparent conductive material such as ITO or indium zinc oxide may also be employed as the lower electrode 21” ([0076]); or Ozaki et al. (U.S. PGPub. 20120325920), which discloses “said barrier metal film comprises a stack of a plurality of layers” (Claim 15). Claim 7 recites “the organic gas contains, as a component, an organic compound which is a multidentate ligand molecule that contains no halogen, has a carboxyl group, and has an OH group, an OCH 3 group, an NH 2 group or an N(CH 3 ) 2 group that is a partial structure having Lewis basicity on a carbon atom adjacent to and bonded to a carbon atom to which the carboxyl group is bonded and having an unshared electron pair”. For the purpose of examining, this will be interpreted as :the organic gas i) contains, as a component, an organic compound, wherein the organic compound is a multidentate ligand molecule that contains no halogen; andii) has a carboxyl group; andiii) has an OH group, an OCH 3 group, an NH 2 group or an N(CH 3 ) 2 group, wherein the N(CH 3 ) 2 group is a partial structure having Lewis basicity on a carbon atom adjacent to and bonded to a carbon atom to which the carboxyl group is bonded and having an unshared electron pair. It is further interpreted as the requirements i), ii) and iii) are independent, i.e. a multidentate ligand molecule that contains no halogen, and that contains a carboxyl group, would satisfies both requirements i) and ii). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 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. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “the wafer having a film to be processed which contains aluminum as a typical metal element and does not contain a transition metal” in the specification. As explained in Claim Interpretations above, for the purpose of examining the above limitation is interpreted as the claimed film may comprise a plurality of metal and non-metal layers, wherein one or more of the layers is exposed to the processing, and wherein one or more of the layers is not exposed to the processing, and wherein none of the exposed or unexposed layers contain a transition metal. Applicant’s argument that support for the claimed limitation may be found in paragraphs [0143-0150] of the published specification, this argument is not persuasive. Paragraph [0143] discloses “On the front surface of the wafer 2 used in this modification, in addition to a first film to be processed containing a typical metal element, for example, an Al 2 O 3 film, which is processed into a desired pattern shape, a second film to be processed containing a transition metal element lower than the fifth period of the periodic table , for example, an La 2 O 3 film, is formed in advance, and a part thereof is exposed ” (emphasis added). This is narrower in scope than the claimed limitation. Claims 2-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended negative limitation “does not contain a transition metal”, this arguments is persuasive. However, it is noted that this limitation does not have support in the specification Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. 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. /THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 17/909,039 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Mar 14, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 15, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683126
Method of Plasma Etching
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12671383
METHOD OF MANUFACTURE OF ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE WITH TRENCH PORTIONS FOR TRANSVERSE MODE SUPPRESSION
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12653003
Method of Profile Control for Semiconductor Manufacturing
3y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12637648
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NANOSTRUCTURE AND NANOSTRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630724
PATTERN FORMING METHOD AND PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 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
52%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+15.9%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 574 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