Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/280,374

PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 05, 2023
Examiner
LEE, AIDEN Y
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hitachi High-Tech Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
221 granted / 476 resolved
-18.6% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
506
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 476 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) The “allow a wafer to be processes to be disposed” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be “dispose a wafer to be processes”. (2) The “allow plasma to be formed” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be “form plasma” or “generate plasma”. (3) The “allow the wafer to be placed” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be “place the wafer” or “support the wafer”. (4) The “the plurality of regions are disposed corresponding to circuit patterns” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be “the plurality of regions are disposed to correspond to circuit patterns”. (5) The “allow the power to return” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be “return the power”. (6) The “the base material set to ground potential” of Claim 3 would have a better form if amended to be “the base material having ground potential” or “the base material coupled to ground potential”. (7) The “adjust an output of the film-shaped heaters” of Claim 5 should be “adjust outputs of the film-shaped heaters”. (8) The “the film-shaped heater disposed in one of the rectangular regions of the first heater layer” of Claim 7 would have a better form if amended to be “the film-shaped heater of the first heater layer” by removing redundant terms. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. (1) Across the claim list, there present plural “disposed in”. Does the “in” means inside? Since, based on the applicants’ Fig. 2, the applicants’ recited critical features are inside a layer or on a layer. Depending on a term, the location is differently defined. It is respectfully requested to clarify the feature by different term, such as “embedded in the layer”, “disposed within the layer”, “disposed on the layer”, or etc. (2) The “the first heater layer including a plurality of film-shaped heaters respectively disposed in a plurality of regions having a rectangular shape” of Claim 1 is not clear. The plurality of regions, together, has one big rectangular shape? Or each region has a rectangular shape? For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of “each film-shaped heater having a rectangular shape”. (3) The “wherein the plurality of regions are disposed corresponding to circuit patterns of a plurality of semiconductor devices formed on an upper surface of the wafer, and include four regions in which each of the plurality of regions has one side of the rectangle facing an adjacent region, and with the film-shaped heaters disposed in the four regions being one set, each set includes four power supply paths and one return path, the four power supply paths being electrically each connected to one place of each of the film-shaped heaters of the set and being configured to supply power from a direct-current power supply, the one return path being electrically connected to another place of each of the film-shaped heaters and being configured to allow the power to return to the direct-current power supply” of Claim 1 is not clear. First, the limitations are narrative in form, thus it is not clear which part of the same sentence is modified by later part. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. It is respectfully requested to make a separate sentence by “wherein” phrase. for the purpose of clarification. Second, does the “include” mean the plurality of regions “include”? It can be any part of the prior recited features. It is respectfully requested to make a separate sentence by “wherein” phrase for the purpose of clarification. Similar terms in Claim 2 are also respectfully requested to make correction. Third, in the “four regions in which each of the plurality of regions has one side of the rectangle facing an adjacent region”, It is not clear what the “the plurality of regions” means. does it mean “four regions”? Further, does the “the rectangle” mean the same as “rectangular region”? it is resected to use consistent format of the term. For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of: “four regions in which each region has one side facing an adjacent region of the four regions”. Fifth, the “with the film-shaped heaters disposed in the four regions being one set, each set includes four power supply paths and one return path” is not clear, because of “each”. Claim 1, as is, is constructed such that the plural regions are four regions, then the four regions is grouped to be one set, therefore, the current claim 1 is set forth to have only one set. It is not clear what the “each set” means. The plural regions have more than one set? If so, the claim must be differently recited, such as “some of the plural regions are grouped each has four regions”. Lastly, the “the four power supply paths being electrically each connected to one place of each of the film-shaped heaters of the set and being configured to supply power from a direct-current power supply, the one return path being electrically connected to another place of each of the film-shaped heaters and being configured to allow the power to return to the direct-current power supply” would have a better form, if amended to be: “in each set, wherein each of the four power supply paths is electrically connected to a first position of each film-shaped heater and configured to supply power from a direct-current power supply, and the one return path is electrically connected to a second position of each film-shaped heater and configured to return the power to the direct-current power supply”. (4) The “regions” of Claim 2 is not clear. Claim 2 is dependent from Claim 1. Does it mean the “three or more regions” of Claim 2 or the “plural regions or four regions” of Claim 1. (5) The “un upper surface of the base” of Claim 2 is not clear. Is it same as the “un upper surface of a disk-shaped base material” of Claim 1 or different surface? (6) Claim 2 recites two “a radial direction”. They are different direction? It is not clear what structural requirement is required to distinguish them. (7) The “wherein the return path is disposed at a place where four corners of the four regions adjacent to one another when viewed from above are adjacent to one another, and in the four regions, the power supply path is connected to a corner at a diagonal position of a corner where the return path is connected” of Claim 4 is not clear. First, what does the “adjacent to one another when viewed from above are adjacent to one another” mean? Second, the “four corners of the four regions” means four corners of one group having four regions? Or four corners of each of four regions? Third, if the applicants intend to define the recited one place where the return path is connected is a corner, it is respectfully to request to make the language simple, such as “wherein the one place where the return path is connected is a corner…”. (8) Claim 6 recites “a potential of at least one place where each of the film-shaped heaters is connected to four power supply paths is lower than a potential of a place where each of the film-shaped heaters is connected to one return path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests above to use “first” and “second”, instead of the “one” and “another”, thus it would have a better form if amended to be: “a potential of at least one of the first positions where each film-shaped heaters is connected to the four power supply paths is lower than a potential of the second position where each film-shaped heaters is connected to the one return path”. (9) Claim 7 recites “a heater of the second heater layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be examined inclusive of “the film-shaped heater of the second heater layer”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598948
PURGING SPINDLE ARMS TO PREVENT DEPOSITION AND WAFER SLIDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593640
SEMICONDUCTOR WAFER PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584240
LOW MASS SUBSTRATE SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559831
MASK, MASK ASSEMBLY HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557599
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+26.6%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 476 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