Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/144,747

HIGH EFFICIENCY MICROWAVE PLASMA APPLICATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 08, 2023
Examiner
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
782 granted / 1241 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1294
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1241 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 A1). INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: Regarding claim 1, Wakayanagi et al. teach a plasma source, comprising: a housing (12), wherein a fluidic channel passes from a first end to a second end of the housing along a horizontal direction, the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction; and an applicator intersecting the fluidic channel, wherein the applicator comprises: a dielectric body (Figs 1, 3, 4, 5 – items 24, 32, 41, 51); and a pin (Figs. – item 16) inserted in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical direction. PNG media_image1.png 497 790 media_image1.png Greyscale DEPENDENT CLAIM 2: Regarding claim 2, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the sidewalls of the dielectric body are spaced away from the sidewalls of the fluidic channel by a gap. (See Fig. 5) DEPENDENT CLAIM 4: Regarding claim 4, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein a bottom of the dielectric body Paragraph 0066) Even when a dielectric is used as the material of the target 51 is spaced away from a bottom of the fluidic channel by a gap. (See Fig. 5) PNG media_image2.png 552 648 media_image2.png Greyscale DEPENDENT CLAIM 6: Regarding clam 6, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the dielectric body is cylindrical. (Paragraph 0028, 0030 – coaxial to the rod; Also paragraphs 0064-0066 - diameter) DEPENDENT CLAIM 10: Regarding claim 10, Wakayanagi et al. teach further comprising: a gas inlet at the first end of the housing; and an exhaust at the second end of the housing. (See Fig. 1 for example) DEPENDENT CLAIM 11: Regarding claim 11, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the exhaust is fluidically coupled to a processing chamber. (See Fig. 1 for example) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12: Regarding claim 12, Wakayanagi et al. teach a semiconductor processing tool, comprising: a processing chamber; and a plasma source fluidically coupled to the processing chamber, wherein the plasma source comprises: a housing with a first end and a second end along a horizontal direction., the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction; a dielectric body at least partially within the housing between the first end and the second end; and a pin in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical direction. (See Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5) DEPENDENT CLAIM 15: Regarding claim 15, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein sidewall surfaces of the dielectric body and a bottom surf ace of the dielectric body are spaced away from internal surfaces of the housing by a gap. (See Fig. 5) INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18: Regarding claim 18, Wakayanagi et al. teach a semiconductor processing tool, comprising: a processing chamber; and a plasma source coupled to the processing chamber, wherein the remote plasma source comprises: a housing with a fluidic path along a horizontal direction, wherein a gas inlet is provided at a first end of the fluidic path, and an exhaust is provided at a second end of the fluidic path, the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction, wherein the exhaust is coupled to the processing chamber; and a microwave applicator intersecting the fluidic path, wherein the remote plasma source is configured to flow a gas through the fluidic path around the microwave applicator, the microwave applicator having a pin along a vertical direction. (See Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5) PNG media_image3.png 487 814 media_image3.png Greyscale DEPENDENT CLAIM 19: Regarding claim 19, Wakayanagi et al. teach wherein the microwave applicator comprises a cylinder with the pin inserted in an axial center of the cylinder, wherein the cylinder is a dielectric. (See Fig. 1 – item 24; Fig. 5 – item 51) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 3, 5, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110993479 B). DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 16: The difference not yet discussed is wl1erein the sidewalls of the dielectric body are separated from the sidewalls of the fluidic channel by a gap of approximately 10 mm or less. Wang et al. teach "in one embodiment of the application, as shown in FIG. 1, the microwave antenna 2 is a cylindrical structure made of good conductor material. Specifically, the microwave antenna 2 can be made of aluminum and copper and other good conductor material, the specific structure can be cylindrical structure. Alternatively, the total length of the microwave antenna 2 can be 200 mm to 500 mm, the diameter of the microwave antenna 2 can be 10 mm to 40 mm The lengtl1 of the first end 21 of the microwave antenna 2 into the waveguide 4 may be from 0 mm to 50 mm. Because the microwave antenna 2 corresponding to the length of the generating cavity 3 is set, so t11e inner diameter of the cavity 3 can be 100 millimeters to 200 millimeters, the cavity 3 of the axial length can be 300 millimeters to 60 millimeters. Adopting said design, it can make the embodiment application be applied to different processing technique, so as to effectively improve the application range of the embodiment application.". Regarding claims 3, 16, Wang et al. suggest the a gap of approximately 10 mm using these numbers. (See Machine Translation) PNG media_image4.png 348 578 media_image4.png Greyscale DEPENDENT CLAIM 5: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the bottom of the dielectric body is spaced away from a bottom of the fluidic channel by a gap of 10 mm or less. Regarding claim 5, Wang teach the gap to be approximately 10 mm. (See Machine Translation) PNG media_image5.png 388 566 media_image5.png Greyscale The difference not yet discussed is wherein the cylinder is spaced away from an interior surface of the housing by a gap that is approximately 10 mm or less. Regarding claim 20, Wang et al. suggest the a gap of approximately 10 mm using these numbers. (See Machine Translation) PNG media_image5.png 388 566 media_image5.png Greyscale The motivation for utilizing the features of Wang et al. is that it allows increasing plasma process density for improving the process. (See Abstract) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Wang et al. because it allows for increasing plasma process density for improving the process. Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 A1) in view of Kasai (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0137613 Al). DEPENDENT CLAIMS 9, 17: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the housing comprises aluminum. Regarding claims 9, 17, Kasai teaches wherein the housing comprises aluminum. (Paragraph 0044) The motivation for utilizing the features of Kasai is that it allows for containing the plasma. (Paragraph 0045) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Kasia because it allows for containing the plasma. Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 14 are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Wakayanagi et al. (JP 2005-082849 A1) in view of Sakai et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,297,594), DEPENDENT CLAIM 7: The difference not yet discussed is wherein a dielectric liner is provided along interior surfaces of the fluidic channel. Regarding claim 7, Sakai et al. teach a dielectric liner is provided along interior surfaces of the fluidic channel. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - Item 24) DEPENDENT CLAIM 8: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the dielectric liner comprises a ceramic. Regarding claim 8, Sakai et al. teach wherein the dielectric liner comprises a ceramic. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - alumina) DEPENDENT CLAIM 13: The difference not yet discussed is a lining on an interior surface of the housing is not discussed. Regarding claim 13, Sakai et al. teach a lining on an interior surface of the housing. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - Item 24) DEPENDENT CLAIM 14: The difference not yet discussed is wherein the lining comprises a dielectric ceramic material. Regarding claim 14, Sakai et al teach wherein the lining comprises a dielectric ceramic material. (Column 4 lines 32-36 - alumina) The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakai et al. is that it allows for preventing heavy metal contamination. (Column 4 lines 32-36) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Wakayanagi et al. by utilizing the features of Sakai et al. because it allows for preventing heavy metal contamination. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach a plasma source including a housing, wherein a fluidic channel passes from a first end to a second end of the housing along a horizontal direction, the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction, and an applicator intersecting the fluidic channel, wherein the applicator comprises a pin inserted in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical direction, it is argued that Wakayanagi et al. teach a plasma source including a housing, wherein a fluidic channel passes from a first end to a second end of the housing along a horizontal direction, the second end overlapping with the first end along a horizontal axis along the horizontal direction, and an applicator intersecting the fluidic channel, wherein the applicator comprises a pin inserted in a hole in the dielectric body, the pin along a vertical direction. (See Figs. 1, 5) PNG media_image1.png 497 790 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 552 648 media_image2.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off. 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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. /RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 RM March 3, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603264
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING TOOL AND METHODS OF OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595548
DOPED NICKEL OXIDE TARGET AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584217
TRAY ASSEMBLIES FOR PRECURSOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580157
Grid Assembly for Plasma Processing Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577638
CASTABLE ALUMINUM ALLOYS FOR WAFER HANDLING CHAMBERS IN SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
63%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1241 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