Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/225,007

METHODS OF ADJUSTING UNIFORMITY, AND RELATED APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
LEONG, NATHAN T
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
527 granted / 745 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 with traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups contain overlapping or similar elements. This is not found persuasive because group II is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium (an apparatus whose intended use is to perform a specific method) while group III is directed towards a physical system for performing a specific method. Each group is distinct and there would be a search burden as outlined in the restriction requirement (e.g., no group requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium does not require a window, etc.) As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 contains the limitations “the adjustment factor” and “the target signal”, both of which lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 defines “the adjustment factor” as a threshold ratio of “the target signal” added to a value of 1.0. It is unclear from the claim what “the adjustment factor” should mean as it is defined by another indefinite and unclear limitation. It is further confusing how “the adjustment factor” relates to the rest of the claim, and therefore, the metes and bounds of said claim are unclear. The dependent claims are likewise rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 4. 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 . Claim (s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US 2022/0399214 . Per claim s 1 -3 , Kim teaches a process and apparatus for controlling temperature uniformity comprising heating an internal volume of a processing chamber for semiconductor manufacturing [0021], utilizing a sensor across one or more sections (Fig. 2, abstract, [0081], generating a temperature profile using the data (abstract, [0080]), analyzing the signal profile and adjusting the heating parameters accordingly (abstract), wherein said adjusting comprises identifying a heat source and adjusting the electricity to control the heating temperature as desired (abstract). Kim is silent regarding scanning the sensor across the sections and comparing data to a range. However, Kim does teach that a temperature data requires a distribution of a heat source and estimating operation to get the entire temperature distribution such as, by using multiple heat sensors [0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to therefore scan the temperature sensor across certain sections as desired to create a more accurate temperature sensor. Kim also teaches that the amount of electricity should be controlled based on the distribution of a heat source and temperature profile [0077]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have taken the temperature (signal) profile and compared it to a desired or predetermined range to therefore control or adjust the electricity output as desired with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results, as this is the purpose of Kim’s invention. This comparison and adjustment would necessarily include peaks and troughs as the purpose of Kim’s temperature control is to increase uniformity and therefore even temperature distribution [0086] (abstract). Per claim 7 , Kim teaches that the temperature model is a non-linear model (abstract, [0033]), and also teaches that the process typically includes reflecting a model deviation [0004]. As such, in generating a temperature model, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined a standard deviation during the modeling process with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results. Claim (s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US 2022/0399214 in view of Aderhold et al US 10741457. Per claims 8-9, Kim is silent regarding rotating the substrate during scanning with the sensor. Aderhold teaches a similar process of providing a method to reduce non uniformity during thermal processing (abstract), wherein the substrate support is rotated and a sensor assembly measures the temperature at a plurality of locations (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rotated the substrate according to Aderhold because this helps in reducing non uniformity (abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5352 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10:00-6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5166 . 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. /NATHAN T LEONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590461
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584234
CASING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582778
SURFACE COATING LAYER FORMATION METHOD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576416
INTELLIGENT MARKING PAINT APPLICATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565706
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
71%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 745 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