Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/282,305

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING PROCESS INFORMATION WITH A PARAMETERIZED MODEL

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 15, 2023
Priority
Mar 16, 2021 — EU 21162785.6 +1 more
Examiner
GARBOWSKI, LEIGH M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
ASML Holding N.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
655 granted / 746 resolved
+27.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
759
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§102
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 746 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “PC1” [paragraph 0086,line 2]. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “PIC1” [Fig. 9, bottom left]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 22 be found allowable, claim 28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claim 30 is 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. The boundaries of claim scope are not clear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “metrology apparatus” limitation in the claims. Thus, the claim is incomplete, vague and indefinite. 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)(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. Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by MIDDLEBROOKS et al. [US 2023/0004096 A1]. See, for example, FIGS. 3-4 and paragraphs [0097-0110], FIGS. 5-6 and paragraphs [0111-0122], FIGS. 8-9 and paragraphs [0126-0171]. The applied reference has a common Applicant and Inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Zhang et al. [US 2017/0345140 A1] (entire document); Kandel et al. [US 2013/0035888 A1] (Abstract); Pisarenco et al. [US 12,632,726 B2] (Abstract, FIGS. 3, 4, 6, column 17, line 15-column 26, line 17). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEIGH M GARBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST. 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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. /LEIGH M GARBOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681379
CORNER ROUNDING METHOD OF OPC PATTERN BASED ON DEEP LEARNING, AND OPC METHOD AND MASK MANUFACTURING METHOD INCLUDING THE CORNER ROUNDING METHOD
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12657497
MICROMOTION AND STRAY FIELD COMPENSATION OF A TRAPPED ION CHAIN
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12639501
Systems and Methods for Floating Point to Quantized Grid Sampling
2y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631956
MASK FABRICATION EFFECTS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL MASK SIMULATIONS USING FEATURE IMAGES
3y 7m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12619810
CHIP STRUCTURE WITH STEGANOGRAPHIC FILL SHAPE PATTERN
3y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.4%)
2y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 746 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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