Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/014,452

GROWTH INHIBITOR FOR FORMING THIN FILM, METHOD OF FORMING THIN FILM USING GROWTH INHIBITOR, AND SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE FABRICATED BY METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 04, 2023
Priority
Jul 17, 2020 — RE 10-2020-0089035 +1 more
Examiner
HEINCER, LIAM J
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Soulbrain Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allowance Rate
787 granted / 1417 resolved
-9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
1503
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
71.6%
+31.6% vs TC avg
§102
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§112
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1417 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 6, 2026 has been entered. 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 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 2011/0281090) in view of the evidence of Chemical Book (2-Bromo-2-methylpropane, Chemical Safety Data Sheet MSDS/SDS, 2025). Considering Claim 1 and 2: Watanabe et al. teaches tert-butyl bromide/ a compound of chemical formula 1 where A is carbon, n is 1, B is an alkyl group with one carbon atom, X is a halogen with a bond dissociation of 292.86 (See Table 1 of the original specification), o is 1, and i and j are zero (¶0115). The compound is used in preparing thin films (Abstract). As shown by Chemical Book, tert-butyl bromide is liquid at room temperature, has a density of 1.22 g/mL, a vapor pressure of 179.9 hPa/135 mmHg, and is insoluble in water. Watanabe et al. teaches the identical claimed chemical structure of chemical formula I, and teaches the claimed liquid state, density, vapor pressure, solubility, and bond dissociation energy. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. While Watanabe et al. does not teach the claimed interactions with the thin film, these interactions do not change the structure of the compound itself, which is controlled by Chemical Formula 1. Watanabe et al. does not teach that the compound is a growth inhibitor. However, this is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Considering Claim 4: Watanabe et al. does not teach that the compound is used in an atomic layer deposition process. However, this is a statement of intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because: The applicant’s argument that Watanabe et al. does not teach the claimed interactions with the thin film is not persuasive. Watanabe et al. teaches the identical claimed chemical structure of chemical formula I, and teaches the claimed liquid state, density, vapor pressure, solubility, and bond dissociation energy. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. While Watanabe et al. does not teach the claimed interactions with the thin film, these interactions do not change the structure of the compound itself, which is controlled by Chemical Formula 1. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Jan 10, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102
Mar 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12628747
METHOD FOR PRODUCING OXIDIZED LIGNINS AND SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING OXIDIZED LIGNINS
3y 7m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624205
POLYCARBONATE RESIN COMPOSITION AND OPTICAL MOLDED ARTICLE COMPRISING THE SAME
5y 3m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12624171
LIGNIN-BASED PHENOLIC ADHESIVES, RELATED COMPOSITIONS, AND RELATED METHODS
3y 10m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12605694
Super Absorbent Polymer
1y 4m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600849
Super Absorbent Polymer Film and Preparation Method Thereof
3y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1417 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