Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/010,990

INTERMITTENT STAGNANT FLOW

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 16, 2022
Examiner
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lam Research Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
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

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hua et al (US 2010/0095979). Hua et al teach an apparatus. The apparatus comprises: A remote plasma source 112; A reaction chamber 102; A down tube 106; A pump 148; A fore line 150, 150b; A gate valve 146; A chamber pump port 154. The apparatus is disclosed as conducting the following: Cause the remote plasma source 112 to generate the cleaning gas and to supply the cleaning gas to the reaction chamber 102 via the downtube 106, wherein the cleaning gas forms a gas flow streamlines (the referenced stream lines are formed at least due to the presence of valve 130), the streamlines flow from at an injection port of the down tube 106 and terminate at port 154; Modify flow characteristics of the cleaning gas by pressure, time, flow of gases through nozzles 108; Flow at least a portion of the streamlines in proximity of the inner perimeter to remove the residue deposits from the inner perimeter (readable at least on the vertical walls of the chamber 102, which are orthogonal to the horizontal surface of the chamber which includes the injection port of the down tube 106). Periodically switching between high-pressure and low-pressure cleaning by controlling valve 146. Hua et al also teach switching to the high-pressure cleaning by fully opening valve 146. See at least Figures 1, 6 and the related description, the description at [0005-35] and Figures 1, 2, 4 and the description of the incorporated by Hua et al US 2009/0120464. The cleaning operation and the functioning of valve 146 is best described at [0021-25]. Hua et al do not specifically recite fully closing the valve 146, but since Hua et al recommend fast switching between the high-pressure cleaning and low-pressure cleaning by valve 146 and teach fully opening the valve 146 for switching from the high-pressure cleaning to the low-pressure cleaning (see at least Figure 2A and the related description and the description at [0024]) it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to fully close the valve 146 during switching from the low-pressure cleaning to the high-pressure cleaning. Further, since, Hua et al teach all the referenced functioning of the apparatus, the presence of the controller configured to enable the referenced functioning is inherent. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide the apparatus Hua et al with a controller configured to perform the disclosed functioning in order to automate the functioning of the apparatus. As to claims 13 and 18: Hua et al, as applied above teach the apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation of the specific duration and pressures as recited by the claims. However, Hua et al teach the referenced parameters as result effective and teach ranges for the referenced parameters that include the claimed ranges/values. See at least [0006-7], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0028]. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum pressure and duration in modified Hua et al depending from the specifics of the application by routine experimentation. As to claim 14: Hua et al teach detecting a clean uniformity associated with removing the residue deposits (readable on the end point of the cleaning in Hua et al) and controlling the duration of the process based on the detecting. AS to claim 15: Hua et al teach monitoring of the end point by sensor 144. The claimed filler plates are readable at least on plates of the valve 130, which is disposed on the vertical surface 128. AS to claim 16 Hua et al teach monitoring of the end point by sensor 144. The claimed slit valve ports are readable at least on the ports of the valve 130, which is disposed on the vertical surface 128. As to claim 19: Hua et al do not specifically teach a second valve functioning as the valve 146. However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the inclusion of a second valve. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants again argue that valve 146 is not controlled as claimed. This is not persuasive. Hua et al teach periodically switching between high-pressure and low-pressure cleaning by controlling valve 146. Hua et al also teach switching to the high-pressure cleaning by fully opening valve 146. The cleaning operation and the functioning of valve 146 is best described at [0021-25]. Hua et al do not specifically recite fully closing the valve 146, but since Hua et al recommend fast switching between the high-pressure cleaning and low-pressure cleaning by valve 146 and teach fully opening the valve 146 for switching from the high-pressure cleaning to the low-pressure cleaning (see at least Figure 2A and the related description and the description at [0024]) it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to fully close the valve 146 during switching from the low-pressure cleaning to the high-pressure cleaning. It is noted that the applicants allege that paragraphs [0033-34] of Hua et al contradict to the above explanation. The referenced paragraphs are cited below: [0033] Vacuum system 114 also includes additional isolation valves 140 and 142, an endpoint detector 144, an additional throttle valve 146 and a roughing pump 148. During substrate processing operations, isolation valve 140 is closed while gate valve 132 and isolation valve 142 are open. Gases are exhausted into a foreline 150 through port 152 and gas conduit 150a. Pressure during substrate processing operations is controlled by throttle valve 130. During a chamber clean operation, gate valve 132 and isolation valve 142 are closed while valve 140 is open. The cleaning gas is exhausted into foreline 150 through port 154 and gas conduit 150b. Pressure during the chamber cleaning operation is controlled by throttle valve 146. Gas conduits 150a and 150b are part of gas foreline 150. [0034] Chamber body 102, body member 126 and throttle body 128 are welded together to form an integral housing. Port 154 is one of three ports that are located at about the same height on chamber 100. The other two ports are located 90 degrees to the left and right of port 154 and are thus not shown in FIG. 6. Each of the aforementioned three ports are upstream (with respect to gas flow into and out of the chamber during substrate processing and chamber clean operations) from gate valve 132 and turbo molecular pump 134. In some embodiments of the invention, the ports not shown are typically used to couple devices such as a pressure gauge or purge of helium gas to chamber 100. In embodiments where increased pumping capacity is utilized, however, however, these additional ports are coupled directly to the foreline with appropriate fittings and valves to provide gas flow paths to the foreline in addition to the path through port 154 during a chamber cleaning operation and thereby increase the pumping capacity of chamber 100 during a chamber cleaning operation. Further details of such a foreline arrangement are discussed in U.S. application Ser. No. 12/265,641 published on May 14, 2009 as U.S. Publication No. 2009/0120464, which is incorporated herein by reference. In contrast to the applicants’ allegation nothing in the referenced paragraphs contradicts to the position of the Office. In opposite, to the applicants’ allegation, the cited paragraphs support the position of the Office by reciting that the pressure during the chamber cleaning operation is controlled by throttle valve 146. Please, also see paragraph [0024] and Figure 2A of Hua et al. [0024] Generally it is desirable to reduce the pressure in step 12 as quickly as possible to as low of a pressure level as possible. At reduced chamber pressure levels, clean efficiency temporarily drops. Step 12 can be endpointed on either a time basis or a pressure basis. That is, in some embodiments the reduced pressure clean step 12 is stopped after X seconds while in other embodiments it is stopped once the pressure drops to X Torr. In one embodiment, step 12 is endpointed after a selected period of between 4-8 seconds. In another embodiment, step 12 is endpointed upon reaching a selected pressure between 0.5-4 Torr. In still another embodiment, step 12 is endpointed upon reaching a selected pressure of between 0.5-2.5 Torr. To maintain an overall high clean efficiency, embodiments of the invention minimize the duration of step 12 relative to step 10. In some embodiments, the duration of step 12 is between 10-33 percent of the duration of step 10. PNG media_image1.png 539 682 media_image1.png Greyscale Thus, the teaching of Hua et al does not contradicts to the position of the Office, but supports the position of the Office. Thereby the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive. 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

Dec 16, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 02, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (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

3-4
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