Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/924,907

SOFT MASK TECHNOLOGY FOR ENGINE SURFACE TEXTURING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 11, 2022
Examiner
MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
Art Unit
1716
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The George Washington University
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

65%
Career Allow Rate
615 granted / 945 resolved
Without
With
+22.7%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
35 pending
980
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-18 in the reply filed on December 4, 2025 is acknowledged. 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 17 and 18 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 17 recites the limitation "the bearing holder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the term “bearing holder” is taken to mean “the holder” as the term “bearing” was not otherwise recited in the claims. 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 11, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawato et al (US 2013/0273746). The prior art of Kawato et al teaches a vapor deposition device. Regarding claim 11. A transfer apparatus, comprising: a holder 52 configured to hold a component (substrate 200); and a roller having a roller surface configured to transfer a flexible mask 60 to the component. Regarding claim 12. The transfer apparatus of claim 11, wherein the roller 91, 92 has a cylindrical shape see [0077] and [0082]. Regarding claim 14. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11 to 12), wherein the holder includes a height-adjustable holder 80 see [0077] of Kawato et al configured to lift the component to be in contact with the soft mask over the roller. Regarding claim 18. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11, 12, and 14) wherein the roller has a cylindrical shape. See Figs. 1-3 of Kawato et al. PNG media_image1.png 590 830 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1 of Kawato et al (US 2013/0273746) 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. Claim 13 (as dependent on claims 11 and 12) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawato et al (US 2013/0273746) in view of Dunn et al (US 6,018,383). The teachings of the prior art of Kawato et al were discussed above. The prior art of Kawato et al fails to teach: Regarding claim 13. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11 to 12, further comprising: a base; and one or more support members over the base and being configured to support the roller; wherein the holder is over the base. The prior art of Dunn et al teaches a mask and substrate are supported by rollers respectively. Dunn et al also teaches a stage (base 12) where the support members (rollers 30-32 and drum 34 are provided over the base and the base is configured to support the roller. The motivation to provide the base is that the base enhances support of the rollers see col. 6 lines 29-32 of Dunn et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the prior art of Kawato et al with the base of Dunn et al to offer enhanced support of the rollers. PNG media_image2.png 424 614 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 1 of Dunn et al (US 6,018,383) PNG media_image3.png 484 668 media_image3.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Dunn et al (US 6,018,383) Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawato et al (US 2013/0273746) in view of Hsu et al (US 2014/0170377). The teachings of the prior art of Kawato et al were discussed above. The prior art of Kawato et al fails to teach: Regarding claim 15. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11, 12, and 14), wherein the roller surface of the roller is coated with a hydrophilic polymeric thin film to reduce adhesion between the roller surface and the flexible mask. Regarding claim 16. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11, 12, 14, and 15), the flexible mask includes polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The prior art of Hsu et al teaches friction reduction for engine components. See the abstract, [0017], [0018], [0068], [0070], and [0091] of Hsu et al where it is taught to deposit hydrophilic layer to prevent sticking. In [0018] Hsu et al teaches using PDMS to ensure the flexible mask is soft and has the desired physical and chemical properties to provide the optimal material of construction of the mask and roller surface as suggested by Hsu et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the prior art of Kawato et al with the suggested materials of construction of the flexible mask and coating layer of the roller of Hsu et al. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawato et al (US 2013/0273746). The teachings of the prior art of Kawato et al were discussed above. The prior art of Kawato et al fails to teach: Regarding claim 17. The transfer apparatus (of any one of claims 11, 12, and 14), wherein the holder has a concave portion configured to hold the component. See Fig. 1 of Kawato et al (above) where a concave portion is provided to hold and support the rollers of the mask. Noting how well the concave portion supports the mask rollers it would be within a reasonable expectation of success that a concave portion be used to support the component as well. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the prior art of Kawato et al with the concave portion already shown to support the rollers of the mask to also be used as an alternative or additional support for the component in the apparatus of Kawato et al. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Slafer (US 10,580,649) teaches ML imprint masks, flexible substrates in the imprint tools see Figs. 4 and 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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. /SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 28, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12598956
VAPOR DEPOSITION DEVICE AND VAPOR DEPOSITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595567
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589465
PLATEN ROTATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588426
Susceptor for a Chemical Vapor Deposition Reactor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581903
CENTERING DEVICE, CENTERING METHOD, AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+22.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 945 resolved cases by this examiner