Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/309,521

Semiconductor Processing Using a Two-Dimensional Polymer

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
GHYKA, ALEXANDER G
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
1078 granted / 1289 resolved
+15.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1320
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
70.9%
+30.9% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1289 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Specie A (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 8/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims are not species and species always refer to different embodiments of the invention. Applicants argue that the inventions are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because the 2D polymer material is either removed or the 2D polymer remains. Moreover, the 2D polymer material is either deposited, or formed on a substrate surface. Rejoinder will be addressed upon indication of allowable subject matter. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zandi et al (US 2024/0017290). With respect to Claim 1, Zandi et al discloses a method of microfabrication, the method comprising: depositing a two-dimensional (2D) polymer material (paragraphs 45 and 76) over a substrate surface (Figures 5A-5C) having a first material and a second material such that the 2D polymer (530) adheres to the first material without adhering to the second material; depositing a target material (paragraph 4 and 57) over the second material, the 2D material adhered to the first material inhibiting deposition of the target material over the first material; and removing the 2D polymer material (paragraphs 9 and 78). See Figures 5A-5C and 6A-6D and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 44-80. With respect to Claim 2,and the limitation “ the first material is hydrophilic and the second material is hydrophobic”, the limitation is inherent, as the same materials and reaction conditions are disclosed. With respect to Claim 3, Zandi et al discloses further comprising depositing, prior to depositing the 2D polymer material, a surface modification treatment over the second material, depositing the surface modification treatment increasing a hydrophobicity of the second material. See Figures 5A-5B and 6A-6C and corresponding text. With respect to Claim 4, Zandi et al discloses wherein the surface modification treatment comprises a self-assembled monolayer that increases a hydrophobicity of the second material. See Figures 5A-5B and 6A-6C and corresponding text. With respect to Claim 6, Zandi et al discloses wherein the first material is a first metal and the second material is a second metal; or the first material is a first dielectric material and the second material is a second dielectric material. See paragraphs 79-80. With respect to Claim 7, Zandi et al discloses wherein the first material is a dielectric material and the second material is a metal material. See paragraphs 49-52 and 76. With respect to Claim 8, Zandi et al discloses wherein the first material is a metal material and the second material is a dielectric material. See paragraph 76. With respect to Claim 9, Zandi et al discloses wherein the deposited thickness of the 2D polymer material is greater than one nanometer. See paragraph 53. With respect to Claim 10, Zandi et al discloses wherein the 2D polymer material is deposited by spin-on deposition. See paragraph 10. With respect to Claim 11, Zandi et al discloses the 2D polymer material is deposited by a vacuum based deposition process. See paragraph 10, ALD. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to Claim 5, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious inter alia “ further comprising cleaning, prior to depositing the target material over the second material, surfaces of the second material using one or more meta;-containing chemistries, the one or more metal-containing chemistries including one or more of trimethylaluminum (TMA), silanol, alkoxides, metal halides or organometals”. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6. 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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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. AGG October 28, 2025 /ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12642057
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
3y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12642013
WAFER BONDING PROCESS WITH REDUCED OVERLAY DISTORTION
2y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628606
LASER BEAM ADJUSTMENT IN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE FABRICATION
3y 12m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12628486
LED DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING MICRO LED MODULE
2y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12616016
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING CONTACT PLUG
3y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 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
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.8%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1289 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