Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/291,036

PAD-IN-A-BOTTLE (PIB) TECHNOLOGY FOR COPPER BARRIER SLURRIES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Examiner
DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
VERSUM MATERIALS US, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
842 granted / 1023 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1042
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1023 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 . Claim Objections Claims 6, 10, 13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims list “tetrazole and tetrazole derivatives” twice. Appropriate correction is required. 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 recite the broad recitation of the concentration ranges of various components including polyurethane beads, pH, weight percentage ratio of abrasive to polyurethane beads, abrasive ranges, polyurethane beads size, silicone-containing dispersing agent ranges, corrosion inhibitor ranges, surfactant ranges, additive ranges, chelating agent ranges, biocide ranges, oxidizing ranges, and these claims also recite smaller ranges of these concentrations, which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 5, 10, 13-19 are rejected for depending on rejected claims above and not further provide clarification for the ranges. Claim 1 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. With respect to claim 1, it is not clear what ingredients are optional. it is not clear if only “a surfactant to enhance film surface wetting” is optional or other ingredients such as additive, chelating agent, a biocide, pH adjuster, oxidizer are also optional. Clarification is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-19 are allowed over the prior art because the prior art doesn’t teach a CMP composition, a system of CMP comprising the composition, and method of using the composition wherein the composition comprises a weight percentage ratio of abrasive to polyurethane beads is between about 1 to 1 and about 100 to 1 in combination with other limitations of claim 1. The prior art of Borucki et al. (US 2011/0312182) teaches polyurethane beads for CMP composition; however, Borucki doesn’t teach nor suggest that a weight percentage ratio of abrasive to polyurethane beads is between about 1 to 1 and about 100 to 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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. /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 10/30/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600908
ETCHING SOLUTION AND ETCHING METHOD FOR GOLD OR GOLD ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602086
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604691
METHODS FOR WET ATOMIC LAYER ETCHING OF MOLYBDENUM IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595568
ETCHANT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598932
METHODS AND STRUCTURES FOR IMPROVING ETCH PROFILE OF UNDERLYING LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
82%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+7.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1023 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