Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/181,152

COMPONENT FOR FILM FORMATION APPARATUS OR ETCHING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 09, 2023
Examiner
KLUNK, MARGARET D
Art Unit
1716
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Agc Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
188 granted / 432 resolved
-21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 432 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 . 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. 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. 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) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/151294 of Fujie et al., hereinafter Fujie (citing machine translation provided herewith) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0123713 of Forrest et al., hereinafter Forrest. Regarding claim 1, Fujie teaches a component (abstract, Fig 1) for a film formation apparatus or an etching apparatus used for manufacturing semiconductors, the component comprising: a disk-shaped or ring-shaped SiC film (Fig 1, machine translation p2, paragraph 4), wherein the component does not include an interface extending perpendicularly to a thickness direction of the SiC film on an exposed side surface of the SiC film (Fig 5, Fig 6, machine translation p3 and p6 paragraph 7 to p7). Fujie fails to teach the ring has an outer diameter of 300 mm or more and a thickness of 3 mm or more. In the same field of endeavor of SiC articles formed by CVD (abstract), Forrest teaches the rings have a thickness of 0.2 in (about 5 mm) [0041],[0082] and an outer diameter of 14 in (355 mm) [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujie to form the ring using the diameters taught by Forrest because Forrest teaches this is a known market required shape for the rings [0041]. Regarding claim 2, the ring of Fujie does not include an interface extending perpendicularly to the thickness direction of the SiC film inside the SiC film (see Fig 5, 6 of Fujie). Regarding claim 3, the ring of Fujie is a focus ring (abstract) for use in a plasma etching apparatus (translation p1, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 4, in the combination as applied to claim 1, Forrest teaches the rings have a thickness of 0.2 in (about 5 mm) [0041],[0082] and an outer diameter of 14 in (355 mm) [0041]. Regarding claim 7, Fujie teaches the substrate may be removed (translation p8, paragraph 4) which will result in the component not including a substrate. Regarding claim 8, Fujie teaches there may be a substrate (translation p8, paragraph 2-3). Regarding claim 9, Fujie teaches the substrate is graphite (translation p8, paragraph 2-4) which includes carbon. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0380281 of Sriraman et al., hereinafter Sriraman. Regarding claim 1, Fujie teaches a component (abstract, Fig 1) for a film formation apparatus or an etching apparatus used for manufacturing semiconductors, the component comprising: a disk-shaped or ring-shaped SiC film (Fig 1, machine translation p2, paragraph 4), wherein the component does not include an interface extending perpendicularly to a thickness direction of the SiC film on an exposed side surface of the SiC film (Fig 5, Fig 6, machine translation p3 and p6 paragraph 7 to p7). Fujie fails to teach the ring or plate has an outer diameter of 300 mm or more and a thickness of 3 mm or more. In the same field of endeavor of SiC articles for processing apparatuses (abstract and [0026]), Sriraman teaches a SiC showerhead (30 Fig 1 [0025]) have a thickness of 0.4 in (about 10 mm) [0025] and an outer diameter of 20 in (508 mm) [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujie to form a showerhead plate using the diameters taught by Sriraman because Sriraman teaches this is a known market required shape for the showerhead [0025]. Regarding claim 2, the component of Fujie does not include an interface extending perpendicularly to the thickness direction of the SiC film inside the SiC film (see Fig 5, 6 of Fujie). Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1. In the combination as applied, the component is a shower plate (30 Fig 1 of Sriraman) and may be used in a plasma etching apparatus [0002]. Regarding claim 6, Sriraman as applied in the combination teaches a SiC showerhead (30 Fig 1 [0025]) have a thickness of 0.4 in (about 10 mm) [0025] and an outer diameter of 20 in (508 mm) [0025]. Regarding claim 7, Fujie teaches the substrate may be removed (translation p8, paragraph 4) which will result in the component not including a substrate. Regarding claim 8, Fujie teaches there may be a substrate (translation p8, paragraph 2-3). Regarding claim 9, Fujie teaches the substrate is graphite (translation p8, paragraph 2-4) which includes carbon. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0076401 teaches a shower head SiC layer formed by CVD that is greater than or equal to 3 mm thickness [0024]. US 2018/0072629 teaches a SiC edge ring with an outer diameter of 350 mm and a thickness of 5 mm [0052]. US 2013/0093146 teaches a showerhead with a SiC plate having a diameter of 430 mm and a thickness of 4 mm [0055]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30. 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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. /MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 09, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604698
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING SYSTEM AND STATE MONITORING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599925
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595553
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING FILM THICKNESS, AND FILM DEPOSITION SYSTEM AND METHOD USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584223
CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION APPARATUS WITH MULTI-ZONE INJECTION BLOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575360
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING CHAMBER ADAPTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
44%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+29.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 432 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