Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/210,772

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A LOCALIZED FLUID VELOCITY OF A PROCESSING LIQUID DISPENSED ON A SPINNING SUBSTRATE BY TRACKING MOVEMENT OF AN INDUCED PERTURBATION IN THE PROCESSING LIQUID ACROSS THE SPINNING SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
VETERE, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 872 resolved
-4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.7%
+20.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 872 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/12/26 is acknowledged. 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, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korzhova (“Motion Analysis of Fluid Flow in a Spinning Disk Reactor,” Scholar Commons, USF Graduate Theses and Dissertations, 2009). Claims 1, 2 and 8: Korzhova teaches a method for controlling one or more operation parameters of a spinning disk reactor process (i.e. claimed spin-on process) used to dispense a liquid film over a silicon wafer (i.e. claimed semiconductor substrate) (Abst.; p. 1), comprising the steps of: dispensing the processing liquid onto an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate while the substrate is rotated at a predetermined speed, wherein the liquid is dispensed at a predetermined flow rate and flows in a radial direction toward the edge of the substrate (Abst.; p. 37); inducing spiral waves (i.e. claimed perturbation) within the processing liquid, the waves flowing along the liquid at an unknown velocity (pp. 39-43); tracking movement of the spiral waves over time as the waves flow outward (pp. 39-43); utilizing the tracked movement to determine local fluid velocity at one or more radial positions (pp. 55-56) and controlling the predetermined rotation speed at which the substrate is rotated (i.e. claimed one or more operational parameters) based on the localized fluid velocity (pp. 8, 55-56). Claims 10-11: Korzhova teaches using a video camera (i.e. a camera which obtains a plurality of images on the surface over time) to track the spiral waves as they flow outward (p. 24); analyzing the video to determine radial positions of the waves; comparing the radial positions to baseline positions of subsequent waves; and determining localized fluid velocity based on this data (p. 24, e.g.). 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. 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. Claims 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korzhova in light of Bright et al. (US 2017/0332179). Claims 3 and 9: Korzhova fails to teach using a localized thermal change or sound to generate the waves. However, Bright teaches a process of generating waves in a fluid and explains that suitable mechanisms for generating the wave are sound and localized temperature change (¶ 0091). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized a localized thermal change or sound to generate waves in the fluid of Korzhova with the predictable expectation of success. Claims 4 and 5: Korzhova, as modified by Bright, does not discuss the time of generating the waves. However, claims 4 and 5 represent the only two options available (i.e. before or after dispensing the fluid). It is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected generating the waves either before or after the fluid is dispensed with the predictable expectation of success. Claims 6 and 7: Korzhova teaches using a video camera (i.e. a camera which obtains a plurality of images on the surface over time) to track the spiral waves as they flow outward (p. 24); analyzing the video to determine radial positions of the waves; comparing the radial positions to baseline positions of subsequent waves; and determining localized fluid velocity based on this data (p. 24, e.g.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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. /ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600678
METHOD FOR CHARGING OPEN PORES IN CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE, AND CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604657
HIGH-THROUGHPUT EXPLORATION OF TRIPLE-CATION PEROVSKITES VIA TERNARY COMPOSITIONALLY-GRADED FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590181
HYDROPHOBICALLY-MODIFIED ASSOCIATIVE THICKENER POLYMERS PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590035
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN ABRADABLE LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583793
CERAMIC SLATE WITH COLORED JADE EFFECT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+13.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 872 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