Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/238,107

METHODS FOR FORMING LOW-K DIELECTRIC MATERIALS WITH REDUCED DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND HIGH MECHANICAL STRENGTH

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
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

§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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05 February 2025, 29 July 2025, and 01 December 2025 have been considered by the examiner. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 1. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0122632 to Vrtis et al. (“Vrtis”). With regard to Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12 and 18-20, Vrtis teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising providing one or more of the claimed silicon-containing precursors to a chamber in which a substrate resides, forming a plasma of the precursors, and curing with UV energy to form a layer of silicon-containing material featuring a dielectric constant of less than or about 3.0 or 2.8 and a hardness of greater than or about 3.5 or 4.5 GPa (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0024]-[0028], [0052], [0058], [0062]; Claims 4, 26). With regard to Claim 6, Vrtis teaches the claimed temperature (see ¶¶ [0020], [0035]). With regard to Claim 7, Vrtis teaches the claimed pressure (see ¶ [0045]). With regard to Claims 10-11, Vrtis teaches curing via UV using the claimed conditions (see ¶¶ [0052], [00585]; Claim 4). With regard to Claim 13, Vrtis teaches providing O2 (see ¶ [0036]). With regard to Claim 17, Vrtis teaches the films features a Young’s modulus within the claimed range (see Claims 26-28). 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. 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. 2. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrtis. With regard to Claim 14, Vrtis teaches forming plasma at power levels based on substrate size (see ¶ [0041]). To the extent the reference does not expressly teach the claimed power for plasma formation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed a plasma formation power within the claimed range in conducting the process of Vrtis on substrates of varying size. With regard to Claim 15, Vrtis teaches curing via UV wavelengths (see ¶ [0052]). Vrtis does not expressly teach provision of varying UV wavelengths during curing; however within the context of curing operations the reference teaches power and wavelength are variable and tunable to specific bonds (see ¶ [0054]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed curing conditions as claimed throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of a desired degree of curing. With regard to Claim 16, Vrtis teaches incorporation of methyl groups as result-effective with respect to film mechanical properties (see ¶ [0018]). To the extent the reference does not expressly teach the claimed degree of methyl incorporation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have done so in pursuit of achieving desired mechanical properties as taught by Vrtis. 3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrtis as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0313174 to Liou et al. (“Liou”). With regard to Claim 4, Vrtis does not expressly teach the claimed proportion of first and second precursors. Liou is similarly directed to method of producing dielectric layers, and teaches production of resilient film layers via introduction of multiple precursor gasses at proportions within the claimed range (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0038], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the precursors in the claimed proportion in the method of Vrtis throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of dielectric films with advantageous properties as taught by Liou. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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. /Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §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