Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/038,441

ANALYSIS OF MULTI-RUN CYCLIC PROCESSING PROCEDURES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 23, 2023
Examiner
COLLINS, GARY
Art Unit
2115
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
409 granted / 492 resolved
+28.1% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
503
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§103
40.0%
+0.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 492 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamartino US 2006/0155410 A1. Yamartino teaches: 1. A method, comprising: receiving time trace sensor data associated with a substrate processing procedure [acquiring chamber model data 110], wherein the substrate processing procedure comprises two or more sets of processing conditions, [Fig. 1A 120 – steady state and adjustment] and wherein a first set of processing conditions and a second set of processing conditions of the two or more sets of processing conditions each include one or more operations performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber] separating a first portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the first set of processing conditions into a first plurality of cycle data, [Fig. 2 steady state during 210 and 220] wherein each of the first plurality of cycle data is associated with one or more operations that are performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber] separating a second portion of the time trace sensor data corresponding to the second set of processing conditions into a second plurality of cycle data, [Fig. 2 adjustment state 222 and 230] wherein each of the second plurality is associated with one or more operations performed repeatedly; [Fig. 1B 114 – Acquiring chamber data from more than one run of a chamber] processing the first plurality of cycle data and the second plurality of cycle data to generate summary data; [para. 0085, “This statistical variation is represented in the example of FIG. 3 as curves 340 positioned above and below the score curve 310. The curves 340 can be standard deviations, for example .+-.3.sigma.. As such the curves 340 can effectively represent an envelope or range of operation of a chamber relative to the model.”] and providing, to a user, an alert that is based on the summary data. [warning 156 and para. 0101, “In other portions of the phases the subject chamber score 450 extends outside of the statistical variation traces 440, as shown by sections 454. The sections 454 indicate that the subject chamber has a problem that may require adjustment or faulting of the chamber.” And para. 0107, “The step of issuing a warning 156 can occur when the results of the chamber comparison show that the subject chamber is deviating from the chamber model such that is approaching a margin of operation and is tending towards a system fault. Such margins can be any of a variety of limits including the statistical variations of the chamber model, derivations thereof, or some predefined limit.”] Yamartino teaches: 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one steady-state portion of the time trace sensor data, wherein at least a portion of the summary data is based on the steady-state portion. [para. 0095, “Depending on the particular subject chamber, the fault detection infrastructure can include a variety of sensors and indicators used for monitoring the operation of the chamber.” And paras 0076-0077 multivariate model created for steady-state portion] Yamartino teaches: 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a cycle associated with the first plurality of cycle data, wherein performing the cycle associated with the first plurality of cycle data comprises: supplying a first process gas to a processing chamber for depositing a first material on a surface of a substrate; evacuating the first process gas from the processing chamber; supplying a second process gas to the processing chamber for depositing a second material on the surface of the substrate; and evacuating the second process gas from the processing chamber. [para. 0076, “As described herein, the acquired variables can include chamber conditions such as temperature, pressure, gas flow, source power, bias power, valve settings, and the like.”] Yamartino teaches: 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a first set of index values to each of the first plurality of cycle data; and assigning a second set of index values to each of the second plurality of cycle data, such that the first set of index values and the second set of index values comprise a unique identifier for each cycle data of the first and second pluralities of cycle data. [para. 0079, “As noted for the present invention, the phases are further divided into at least one transition or stabilization portion and at least one steady-state portion and the multivariate analysis is performed on each of these portions separately. As a result, separate models for each portion of each recipe phase are provided.”] Yamartino teaches: 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the summary data comprises one or more statistical metrics. [para. 0085, “The curves 340 can be standard deviations, for example .+-.3.sigma.. As such the curves 340 can effectively represent an envelope or range of operation of a chamber relative to the model.”] Yamartino teaches: 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a GUI element, the GUI element comprising:an indication of summary data associated with one or more cycles of the first plurality of cycle data and one or more cycles of the second plurality of cycle data; and a visual distinction between each indication. [para. 0107 – warning 156 and curves 340] Yamartino teaches: 9. The method of claim1,wherein separating the first portion of the time trace sensor data associated with the first set of processing conditions into the first plurality of cycle data comprises identifying two or more operations of a cycle based on sensor data values associated with the two or more operations. [para. 0043, “With split-phase modeling of the present invention, the fault detection model can include separate sub-models which are derived from the adjustment and steady-state portions of the process phase. This provides more accurate model than those achievable by prior whole-step modeling approaches.”] Regarding claims 10-15 and 17-20, these system claims and CRSM claims are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as corresponding method claims above because they recite the execution of the method steps and storage of the method steps above. 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. Claims 4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamartino US 2006/0155410 A1 in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0233775 A1. Yamartino does not teach the following limitation, however, Zhang teaches: 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first material comprises silicon oxide, and wherein the second material comprises silicon nitride. [Fig. 3A 300 and Fig. 4A 400] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Yamartino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Zhang teaches that silicon oxide and silicon nitride materials can be used in a semiconductor etching process which utilizes steady state temperature states. (See para. 0005 and 0018). Zhang teaches: 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate processing procedure is to generate a three-dimensional NAND memory device. [para. 0012, “….etching 3D-NAND flash memory devices”] Regarding claim 16, this system claim recites the generation of a 3D NAND device and is rejected on the same ground and rationale as method claim 8 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST. 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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. /GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12547156
Method of Production for Tamper-Proof Machine Components
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547134
Automation Controller and Method for Operating the Automation Controller
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12550309
COMPONENT MOUNTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543695
MILK EXTRACTING SYSTEM AND COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547158
METHOD FOR GENERATING A DIGITAL REPRESENTATION OF A PROCESS AUTOMATION SYSTEM ON A CLOUD-BASED SERVICE PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 492 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