Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/972,666

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Examiner
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Semes Co. Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
437 granted / 899 resolved
-16.4% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
947
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
36.5%
-3.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 899 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered. 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 1-8 and 10-20 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. As to claims 1-8 and 10-13: The applicants amended the claims 1 and 11 to recite: “at least a portion of a discharge pipe portion of the liquid supply pipe extending from a branch point toward the nozzle tip ascends and then descends, whereby one of discharge or circulation of the liquid is selected according to a flow direction of the liquid”. The referenced amendments make the claims indefinite and incomplete. First, it is not clear “a branch point” of what is referenced. Second, it is not clear how ascending and descending of the pipe may allow or result discharge or circulation. Further, it is not clear what is referenced as “a flow direction of the liquid”. It appears that the claims incomplete because they do not recite any structure to provide “a flow”. Further, it is not clear from the claims how “discharge or circulation” can be selected “according to a flow”. What structure is required? Further, it is not clear what is referenced as a “circulation of the liquid” and what structure is required by the recitation of the referenced circulation. Further, it is not clear how the newly introduced parts of claims 1 and 11 are related to the other parts of claims 1 and 11. The amended claims 7 and 13 are further indefinite for the reasons similar to the reasons indicated above. As to claims 14-20: The applicants amended claim14 to recite: “selecting one of discharge or circulation of the liquid according to a flow direction of the liquid based on at least a portion of a discharge-pipe portion of the liquid supply line extending from a branch point toward the nozzle tip ascends and then descends”. This makes the claims indefinite. First, it is not clear “a branch point” of what is referenced. Second, it is not clear how discharge or circulation may be selected according to the flow direction. Third, it is not clear how discharge or circulation may be selected based on at least a portion of a discharge pipe. Further, it is not clear what is referenced as “a flow direction of the liquid” and how this limitation is related to the other part of the claim. Further, it is not clear what is referenced as a “circulation of the liquid” and how this limitation is related to the other part of the claim. It is not clear where the referenced liquid is circulated. Further, it is not clear how the newly introduced part of claim 14 is related to the other parts of claim 14. 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 1-8 and 10-20 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 applicants amended the claims. Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “at least a portion of a discharge pipe portion of the liquid supply pipe extending from a branch point toward the nozzle tip ascends and then descends, whereby one of discharge or circulation of the liquid is selected according to a flow direction of the liquid”. Claim 11 has been amended to recite: “at least a portion of a discharge pipe portion of the liquid supply pipe extending from a branch point toward the nozzle tip ascends and then descends, whereby one of discharge or circulation of the liquid is selected according to a flow direction of the liquid”. Claim14 has been amended to recite: “selecting one of discharge or circulation of the liquid according to a flow direction of the liquid based on at least a portion of a discharge-pipe portion of the liquid supply line extending from a branch point toward the nozzle tip ascends and then descends”. The applicants also amended 7 and 13 to introduce limitations similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 and 11. The applicants allege that the support for the referenced amendments is provided by paragraph [0048] of the original specification. This is not persuasive. The referenced paragraph merely states: PNG media_image1.png 262 657 media_image1.png Greyscale The examiner was not able to find the support for the referenced amendments neither it the cited paragraph, nor in any other part of the original disclosure. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants amended the claims and alleged that the claims are allowable. This is not persuasive for the reasons presented above. The amended claims have been examined and are the subject of the rejections applied above. The amended claims are unsupported, indefinite and could not be properly understood. The art rejections applied in the previous Office action are withdrawn at this time, but may be reinstated upon placing claims in the correspondence with the requirements 35 USC 112(a) and (b). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. /ALEXANDER MARKOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 21, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599943
System For Spraying the Interior of a Container
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601993
SERVICING PRINT BLANKETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594586
Cleaning Method for Cleaning a Filling Machine and Filling Machine for Carrying out the Cleaning Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582280
DISHWASHER AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588461
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
49%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+32.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 899 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