Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/278,861

OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR FILM AND FILM-FORMING METHOD THE SAME, SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
SARKAR, ASOK K
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1012 granted / 1146 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1166
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1146 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 with traverse of Group II claims, 22 – 35 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related so that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the groups do not share the same or corresponding feature as was described in the mailed restriction requirement on November 07, 2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL Claims 16 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 17, 2025. Claim Objections Claims 22, 26 – 29 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: The relations/equations specified in these claims ("SH/Q ≥ 0.015", "ST/Q ≥ 40" and "S/A ≤ 0.3") are not clear in that the quotients indicated in front of the symbols result in a value with a dimension whereas the values indicated on the other side of the equation is dimensionless. Appropriate correction is required. 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)(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. Claim(s) 22 – 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa, WO 2020261574. Regarding Claim 22, Yoshikawa teaches a film-forming method for heat-treating a raw material solution atomized into a mist and performing a film-formation, the method comprises the following steps: Atomizing 22 the raw material solution or making the raw material solution L into droplets to generate a mist; conveying the mist 28 to a film-forming part 30 by a carrier gas G; and supplying the mist M from a nozzle 32 to a substrate 36, heat-treating the mist 42 on the substrate, and performing the film-formation in the film-forming part 38, wherein with the area of an opening surface of the nozzle being S (0.015 cm2, paragraph 64), the longest distance among distances between points in the opening surface and the surface of the substrate being H ( 12 cm, paragraph 48), and the flow rate of the carrier gas supplied from the nozzle being Q (2 L/min, paragraph 48) , SH/Q 0.015 results with references to Figs. 1 and 2 in paragraphs 37 – 39, 48 – 50 and 64 – 67. Regarding Claims 24 – 25, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the raw material solution contains gallium and wherein the raw material solution contains halogen in paragraph 30. Regarding Claims 26 – 29, Yoshikawa teaches wherein with the temperature of the heat-treatment being TOC], ST/Q >= 40 results in paragraphs 32 and 48. Regarding Claims 30 and 31, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the mist is supplied to the substrate from the nozzle provided vertically above the substrate (see Fig. 3) and wherein the substrate is moved (rotating stage, 34, Fig. 2) under the nozzle 32 in paragraphs 29 and 38. . Regarding Claim 32, Yoshikawa teaches wherein with the area of the surface of the substrate to be performed the film-formation being A [cm2], S/A < 0.3 results based on values provided in paragraphs 21 and 64. Regarding Claim 33, Yoshikawa teaches the opening surface of the nozzle is rectangular in paragraph 64. Regarding Claim 35, Yoshikawa teaches wherein the area of the substrate is 10 cm2or more in paragraph 21. 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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa, WO 2020261574. Yoshikawa fails to teach wherein with the length of the long axis of the opening surface of the nozzle being L [cm] and the maximum length in the long axis direction of the nozzle within the surface of the substrate to be performed the film-formation being R [cm], L/R>1 results. However, given the substantial teaching of Yoshikawa, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to judiciously adjust and control these parameters during the deposition of the film by the spray pyrolysis SLS process through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve optimum benefits (see MPEP 2144.05) and it would not yield any unexpected results. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed processes or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen methods or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen methods or variables are critical (Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir., 1990)). See also In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233 – 237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukui, WO 2021048950 and Fukui, US 2023/0231013 teach oxide deposition by solution pyrolysis processes. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASOK K SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571 - 272 - 1731. 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. /ASOK K SARKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 March 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601048
FILM FORMING METHOD AND FILM FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604601
LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT, QUANTUM DOT SOLUTION, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601055
METHOD OF DEPOSITING ATOMIC LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594622
LASER-ASSISTED METHOD FOR PARTING CRYSTALLINE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592369
INTEGRATED METHOD AND TOOL FOR HIGH QUALITY SELECTIVE SILICON NITRIDE DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+9.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1146 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