Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/237,712

SPIN COATER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE BY USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 24, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
479 granted / 656 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
685
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 656 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 09 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 24 August 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0106344 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 August 2023 and 09 February 2026 have been considered by the examiner. 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. 1. Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,677,933 to Sato et al. (“Sato”). With regard to Claims 1-2, Sato teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising providing a coating solution on a wafer, spinning the wafer to distribute the coating solution, and treating the coated wafer with a sound wave (see Abstract; FIG. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 31-52; Col. 4, Lns. 29-37). The coating material is described as comprising a solute and a solvent, and is indicated as having a viscosity which is reduced via application of sound wave energy (see Col. 6, Lns. 22-23; Col. 4, Lns. 34-35; Col. 5, Lns. 21-23). Per Sato, the frequency of the sound wave is selected according to the kind of coating material employed, and further is selected to match the harmonic frequency of the coating material in order to accelerate absorption of sound waves by the material and increase the coating fluidity thereof, thereby yielding a flattened coating film (see Col. 4, Lns. 35-37; Col. 11, Lns. 40-54). Flattening of the coating film is understood as tantamount to removal of any voids residing between the film and substrate. A harmonic frequency is understood herein to constitute a type of natural frequency or eigenfrequency. Sato does not expressly teach matching a harmonic frequency of the wafer with coating material thereon; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a sound wave frequency matching the harmonic frequency of the coated wafer in order to accelerate sound wave absorption of the entirety of the coated surface. With regard to Claims 3-9, Sato teaches adjustment of applied frequencies and portrays multiple resultant nodes of the acoustically-treated film featuring radial and circular symmetry (see FIGs. 1, 4A, 8-13A, 14-16A, 17-18; Col. 11, Lns. 13-17). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F. 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 571-272-1418. 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. /Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599567
A METHOD FOR PREPARING A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE WITH INKS AND A VETERINARY MEDICAMENT DOSAGE OBTAINABLE BY THE METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599919
SLOT-TYPE SPRAY NOZZLE, COATING DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF FILM-COATED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594729
ADHESIVE APPLICATION DEVICE AND METHOD OF APPLYING ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594578
STRUCTURAL MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580202
ELECTRODE LAYER COMPOSITION, PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE THEREOF AND MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 656 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