Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/354,889

SUBSTRATE TREATMENT METHOD, AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 19, 2023
Examiner
FRASER, STEWART A
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1135 granted / 1320 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1365
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1320 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/354889 by Fujimoto et al. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “thereafter, spaying clustered gas particles to the substrate.” It appears the word spaying should instead be replaced with the word spraying. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2020/0233308 A1), herein referred to as Kawakami. Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kawakami teaches ([0002, 0005 and 0022] and Claim 13) a substrate processing method (substrate treatment method) that comprises forming a metal-containing resist film on a wafer (substrate), performing a heating processing step and an exposure processing step on the resist film formed on the wafer, and subsequently performing a developing processing on the resist film formed on the wafer. Kawakami further teaches [0029] the heating processing step can include a post exposure bake step (PEB) and then after the heating processing step, Kawakami teaches [0101] the wafer is cooled on a cooling plate prior to the development step. Regarding claim 11, Kawakami teaches the substrate processing method described above and further teaches (Claim 14) a computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause an apparatus to perform the aforementioned substrate processing method. With further regard to claims 2 and 11, Kawakami teaches [0102] heat treating (applying thermal energy) the resist film formed on the wafer after the development step. Kawakami does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 11 directed to “suppressing the precursor formation of a film of the metal-containing resist formed on a substrate on which exposure and a PEB treatment have been performed; and subsequent thereto, improving selectivity of the film by the condensation reaction in the film before the forming the pattern. However, at the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique, such as the substrate processing method taught by Kawakami with the specified cooling step, to reasonably expect improved suppression of precursor formation in the resist film and improved selectivity of the resist film because lowering the temperature of the resist covered wafer would inhibit chemical reactions such as condensation/dehydration reactions within the resist film. Furthermore, by applying the known methods steps of Kawakami, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to improve resist film stability on a semiconductor wafer, thereby achieving predictable results (MPEP Chapter 2143, Section I, Part D titled “Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results”) Regarding claim 3, Kawakami teaches [0101] the cooling step is performed without an intervening treatment step. Regarding claim 4, Kawakami teaches [0102] heat treating (applying thermal energy) the resist film to improve the pattern forming ability of the resist film. Regarding claims 5-7, although Kawakami does not explicitly teach performing development at least twice on the resist covered wafer or performing PEB processes at least twice. However, in view of Kawakami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to performing multiple development processes and PEB processes on a resist covered wafer with a reasonable expectation of success because such processes are known to one of ordinary skill in the art and are conventionally performed to process resist covered wafers. Regarding claims 8 and 9, although Kawakami does not explicitly teach the development step being in wet mode or dry mode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ dry (gaseous) development or wet (liquid) development with a reasonable expectation of success because such development processes are known to one of ordinary skill in the art and are conventionally performed to process resist covered wafers. Regarding claim 10, although Kawakami does not explicitly teach the time of the cooling step (suppressing the precursor formation and improving selectivity), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a constant time during the cooling step for each wafer with a reasonable expectation of success and to ensure the resist covered wafers are processed uniformly to the correct manufacturing specifications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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. /STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603312
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603306
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DRAINING RESIDUAL WATER OF A FUEL CELL FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596299
EUV TRANSMISSIVE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591173
SUBSTRATE WITH MULTILAYER REFLECTIVE FILM, REFLECTIVE MASK BLANK, REFLECTIVE MASK, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591172
EUV TRANSMISSIVE MEMBRANE
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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1320 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