Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/244,679

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING A SUBSTRATE IN CLEANING MODULES

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
MCCLAIN, GERALD
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Applied Materials, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
575 granted / 773 resolved
+22.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
815
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . The amendment filed 9 October 2025 has been entered. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “… are described,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 10-14 and 16 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. In clarified Claim 10 from the previous Office action, the phrase, “a distance between the first side of the first cleaning module and the first side of the second cleaning module is between 102% and 150% an overall length of the first gripping assembly and the substrate when the first axis is oriented perpendicular to the first side of the first cleaning module and the first side of the second cleaning module” is indefinite per MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) (“REFERENCE TO AN OBJECT THAT IS VARIABLE MAY RENDER A CLAIM INDEFINITE”). Specifically, the distance of “an overall length of the first gripping assembly and the substrate when the first axis is oriented perpendicular to the first side of the first cleaning module and the first side of the second cleaning module” is variable since the reference distance of the substrate therein is variable as claimed and/or unknown in light of the orig. spec. If there were disclosed substrate distances, or diameters/radii of the substrate, this clause may be definite; however, these are not present per the orig. written description within the four walls of this application. Claims 11-14 and 16 depend on Claim 10. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 17-21 are allowed. Claims 11-14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 14-20, filed 9 October 2025, with respect to the objections and rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Lester, Schmidt, Hibino, and Davis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 112(b). It is noted that the subject matter of Claim 10 was clarified at least on p. 14 of the REMARKS. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)). 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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. /Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583691
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583019
SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TRANSPORTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564970
TRANSFER APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559325
TRANSFER ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552051
OBJECT CONVEYING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+11.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month