Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/476,009

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING A CONDITION OF LAMPS USED IN SEMICONDUCTOR FABRICATION PROCESSING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 27, 2023
Examiner
ALBRECHT, PETER M
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Asm Ip Holding B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 475 resolved
+1.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
505
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 475 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on September 27, 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “in” should be inserted between “into use” and “the semiconductor fabrication process” (claim 1, line 7); “is” should be inserted between “value” and “selected” (claim 6, line 1). 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. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0130184 A1 (hereinafter “Lu”) in view of US 2014/0067324 A1 (hereinafter “Ho”). Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses in Fig. 1 and related text a system for determining a condition of a heat lamp (114; [0014]-[0015]) used in a semiconductor fabrication process ([0002]) comprising: a reaction chamber (100; [0012]) comprising a susceptor (146; [0013]) disposed within the reaction chamber; and the heat lamp disposed outside of the reaction chamber and optically coupled to the susceptor by a wall of the reaction chamber ([0016]). Lu does not disclose a controller for determining a subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp once placed into use in the semiconductor fabrication process, wherein the controller compares the subsequent resistance value to a programmed threshold value, and wherein the controller provides an indication when the subsequent resistance value passes the programmed threshold value. Ho teaches a controller (60; Fig. 1; [0009] and [0015]) for determining a subsequent resistance value (R; [0017] and [0020]) of the heat lamp once placed into use in the semiconductor fabrication process ([0008]), wherein the controller compares the subsequent resistance value to a programmed threshold value (2.5%; [0024]), and wherein the controller provides an indication (alarm) when the subsequent resistance value passes the programmed threshold value ([0025]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a controller for determining a subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp once placed into use in the semiconductor fabrication process, wherein the controller compares the subsequent resistance value to a programmed threshold value, and wherein the controller provides an indication when the subsequent resistance value passes the programmed threshold value, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before burn-out occurs (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 2, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 1. Lu does not disclose a sensor that determines an electrical current of the heat lamp during use. Ho teaches a sensor that determines an electrical current of the heat lamp during use ([0012]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a sensor that determines an electrical current of the heat lamp during use, as taught by Ho, in order to calculate the resistance of the heat lamp according to Ohm’s Law (V=IR, where V is the voltage, I is the current, and R is the resistance) for the purpose of predicting when the heat lamp will burn out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 3, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 2. Lu does not disclose the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp from the electrical current as determined by the sensor and an amount of electrical power used to power the heat lamp. Ho teaches the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp from the electrical current as determined by the sensor and an amount of electrical power used to power the heat lamp (Ho’s sensor measures current (I) and power (P) of the heat lamp, as described in [0012], enabling the resistance (R) to be determined by the formula P=I2R which is common knowledge among those of ordinary skill in the art). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp from the electrical current as determined by the sensor and an amount of electrical power used to power the heat lamp, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 4, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 1. Lu does not disclose the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp after repeated uses of the heat lamp during subsequent semiconductor fabrication processes. Ho teaches the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp after repeated uses of the heat lamp during subsequent semiconductor fabrication processes (Ho describes “various processed wafers” [i.e., plural] in [0018], which is deemed to teach “repeated uses of the heat lamp during subsequent semiconductor fabrication processes” as claimed). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller such that the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp after repeated uses of the heat lamp during subsequent semiconductor fabrication processes, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 5, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 4. Lu does not disclose the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp during a same stage of the semiconductor fabrication process. Ho teaches the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp during a same stage (epitaxial growth; [0011]) of the semiconductor fabrication process. Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller such that the controller determines the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp during a same stage of the semiconductor fabrication process, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 6, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 1. Lu does not disclose the programmed threshold value is selected from one or more of the group consisting of a resistance level and a resistance difference as measured from an initial resistance value of the heat lamp. Ho teaches the programmed threshold value is selected from one or more of the group consisting of a resistance level and a resistance difference ([Symbol font/0x44]R) as measured from an initial resistance value (R0) of the heat lamp ([0020] and [0024]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the programmed threshold value from one or more of the group consisting of a resistance level and a resistance difference as measured from an initial resistance value of the heat lamp, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 7, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 1. Lu does not disclose the indication is provided to a user interface. Ho teaches the indication is provided to a user interface (180; Fig. 2; [0015]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the indication to a user interface, as taught by Ho, in order to enable the user to replace the heat lamp before it burns out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 8, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 1. Lu does not disclose more than one heat lamps, wherein the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps and provide an indication when the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps deviates from the programmed threshold value of each of the heat lamps. Ho teaches more than one heat lamps (“an array of infrared lamps”; [0011]), wherein the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps and provide an indication when the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps deviates from the programmed threshold value of each of the heat lamps ([0017], [0024] and [0025]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide more than one heat lamps, wherein the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps and provide an indication when the subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps deviates from the programmed threshold value of each of the heat lamps, as taught by Ho, in order to ensure sufficient radiant energy to heat a silicon wafer to a desired high temperature for epitaxial growth thereon. Regarding claim 9, Lu discloses in Fig. 1 and related text a system for monitoring a condition of heat lamps (114, 118; [0014]-[0015]) used in semiconductor processing ([0002]) comprising: a reaction chamber (100; [0012]) comprising a susceptor (146; [0013]) disposed within the reaction chamber; and more than one heat lamps (114, 118; [0014]-[0015]) disposed outside of the reaction chamber and optically coupled to the susceptor by a wall of the reaction chamber ([0016]). Lu does not disclose sensors configured to measure an electrical current flow of each of the heat lamps, a controller for determining a subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps after being placed into semiconductor processing use, wherein the controller determines whether the subsequent resistance value of each heat lamp deviates from a programmed threshold value of each of the heat lamps by a predetermined amount, and wherein the controller provides an indication when the subsequent resistance value of any of the heat lamps falls below the programmed threshold value by a predetermined amount. Ho teaches sensors configured to measure an electrical current flow of each of the heat lamps ([0012]), a controller (60; Fig. 1; [0009] and [0015]) for determining a subsequent resistance value (R; [0017] and [0020]) of each of the heat lamps after being placed into semiconductor processing use ([0008]), wherein the controller determines whether the subsequent resistance value of each heat lamp deviates from a programmed threshold value (2.5%; [0024]) of each of the heat lamps by a predetermined amount, and wherein the controller provides an indication (alarm) when the subsequent resistance value of any of the heat lamps falls below the programmed threshold value by a predetermined amount ([0025]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide sensors configured to measure an electrical current flow of each of the heat lamps, and to provide a controller for determining a subsequent resistance value of each of the heat lamps after being placed into semiconductor processing use, wherein the controller determines whether the subsequent resistance value of each heat lamp deviates from a programmed threshold value of each of the heat lamps by a predetermined amount, and wherein the controller provides an indication when the subsequent resistance value of any of the heat lamps falls below the programmed threshold value by a predetermined amount, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamps to predict when each heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before burn-out occurs (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 10, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 9. Lu does not disclose the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamps during a same stage of semiconductor processing. Ho teaches the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamps during a same stage (epitaxial growth; [0011]) of semiconductor processing. Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller to determine the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamps during a same stage of semiconductor processing, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamps to predict when any given heat lamp will burn out so that said heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 11, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 9. Lu does not disclose the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value for each of the heat lamps from the electrical current flow of the heat lamp as provided by a sensor of the one or more sensors and an amount of electrical power directed to a heat lamp of the one or more heat lamps. Ho teaches the controller is configured to determine the subsequent resistance value for each of the heat lamps from the electrical current flow of the heat lamp as provided by a sensor of the one or more sensors and an amount of electrical power directed to a heat lamp of the one or more heat lamps (Ho’s sensors measure electrical current (I) and electrical power (P) of each of the heat lamps, as described in [0012], enabling the resistance (R) of each heat lamp to be determined by the formula P=I2R which is common knowledge among those of ordinary skill in the art). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller to determine the subsequent resistance value for each of the heat lamps from the electrical current flow of the heat lamp as provided by a sensor of the one or more sensors and an amount of electrical power directed to a heat lamp of the one or more heat lamps, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of each of the heat lamps to predict when any given heat lamp will burn out so that said heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 12, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 9. Lu does not disclose the programmed threshold value equates to a remaining heat lamp service life of approximately 20 percent, and wherein an initial resistance value of the heat lamp determined when the heat lamp is new equates to a service life of approximately 100 percent. Ho teaches an initial resistance value of the heat lamp (R0) determined when the heat lamp is new equates to a service life of approximately 100 percent ([0020]). Ho does not explicitly teach the programmed threshold value (a 2.5% change in resistance; [0024]) equates to a remaining heat lamp service life of approximately 20 percent. Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the programmed threshold value to equate to a remaining heat lamp service life of approximately 20 percent in order to enable the heat lamp to be replaced well before burn-out occurs and wafer-scale epitaxial growth is deleteriously affected (Ho: [0021]). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 13, Lu in view of Ho disclose the system of claim 12. Lu in view of Ho do not explicitly disclose the service life of approximately 20 percent equates to a resistance value of approximately 8 ohms to 12 ohms or 10 ohms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to equate the service life of approximately 20 percent to a resistance value of approximately 8 ohms to 12 ohms or 10 ohms in order to enable the heat lamp to be replaced before either an open circuit or a short circuit occurs as a result of catastrophic failure. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 14, Lu discloses in Fig. 1 and related text a method of monitoring a condition of a heat lamp (114; [0014]-[0015]) used in a semiconductor fabrication process ([0002]) comprising a reaction chamber (100; [0012]), a susceptor (146; [0013]) disposed in the reaction chamber, the heat lamp disposed outside the reaction chamber and optically coupled to the susceptor by a wall of the reaction chamber ([0016]). Lu does not disclose determining a subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp after being used in the semiconductor fabrication process; comparing the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp to a programmed threshold value; and providing an indication when the subsequent resistance value falls below the programmed threshold value. Ho teaches determining a subsequent resistance value (R; [0020]) of the heat lamp after being used in the semiconductor fabrication process ([0008] and [0018]); comparing the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp to a programmed threshold value (2.5%; [0024]); and providing an indication (alarm) when the subsequent resistance value falls below the programmed threshold value ([0025]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine a subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp after being used in the semiconductor fabrication process, to compare the subsequent resistance value of the heat lamp to a programmed threshold value, and to provide an indication when the subsequent resistance value falls below the programmed threshold value, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before burn-out occurs (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 15, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 14. Lu does not disclose measuring an initial resistance value of the heat lamp when the heat lamp is in a new condition, and wherein the programmed threshold value is a set value of resistance less than the initial resistance value. Ho teaches measuring an initial resistance value (R0) of the heat lamp when the heat lamp is in a new condition ([0020]), and wherein the programmed threshold value is a set value of resistance (R=0.975R0) less than the initial resistance value ([0016], [0020] and [0024]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to measure an initial resistance value of the heat lamp when the heat lamp is in a new condition, wherein the programmed threshold value is a set value of resistance less than the initial resistance value, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 16, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 14. Lu does not disclose the step of determining is performed without removing the heat lamp from the reactor system. Ho teaches the step of determining is performed without removing the heat lamp from the reactor system (Ho’s CVD epitaxial tool includes sensors that monitor the various parameters associated with the CVD epitaxial tool, including various characteristics of the heat lamp such as voltage, current, power, and resistance, as described in [0012]). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the step of determining without removing the heat lamp from the reactor system, as taught by Ho, in order to maximize the throughput of the semiconductor fabrication process. Regarding claim 17, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 14. Lu does not disclose during the step of determining, a sensor is used to determine a current flow to the heat lamp and a controller is used to determine the subsequent resistance value from the current flow provided by the sensor and an amount of electrical power directed to the heat lamp. Ho teaches a sensor is used to determine a current flow to the heat lamp ([0012]) and a controller (60; Fig. 1; [0009], [0015] and [0017]) is used to determine the subsequent resistance value (R; [0020]) from the current flow provided by the sensor and an amount of electrical power directed to the heat lamp (Ho’s sensors measure electrical current (I) and electrical power (P) to the heat lamp, as described in [0012], enabling the resistance (R) of the heat lamp to be determined by the formula P=I2R which is common knowledge among those of ordinary skill in the art). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, during the step of determining, to use a sensor to determine a current flow to the heat lamp and to use a controller to determine the subsequent resistance value from the current flow provided by the sensor and an amount of electrical power directed to the heat lamp, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 18, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 15. Lu does not disclose the step of determining is performed during a predetermined stage of the semiconductor fabrication process. Ho teaches the step of determining is performed during a predetermined stage (epitaxial growth; [0011]) of the semiconductor fabrication process. Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the step of determining during a predetermined stage of the semiconductor fabrication process, as taught by Ho, in order to monitor the resistance of the heat lamp to predict when the heat lamp will burn out so that the heat lamp can be replaced before such burn-out (Ho: [0016]). Regarding claim 19, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 18. Lu does not disclose the steps of determining and comparing are repeated during subsequent uses of the semiconductor fabrication process. Ho teaches the steps of determining and comparing are repeated during subsequent uses of the semiconductor fabrication process (Ho describes “various processed wafers” [i.e., plural] in [0018], which is deemed to teach “…repeated during subsequent uses of the semiconductor fabrication processes” as claimed). Lu and Ho are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor fabrication processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Ho because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to repeat the steps of determining and comparing during subsequent uses of the semiconductor fabrication process, as taught by Ho, in order to evaluate conditions of the process tool to detect tool issues, such as tool condition deterioration (Ho: [0015]). Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ho as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 5,576,695 (hereinafter “Minger”). Regarding claim 20, Lu in view of Ho disclose the method of claim 14. Lu in view of Ho do not explicitly disclose during the step of providing the indication is provided to a user interface in the form of a one or more of a visual display or audible sound. Minger teaches the indication is provided to a user interface in the form of a one or more of a visual display or audible sound (col. 2, lines 46-55). Lu, Ho and Minger are analogous art because they each are directed to electronic devices/components and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lu in view of Ho with the specified features of Minger because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the indication to a user interface in the form of a one or more of a visual display or audible sound, as taught by Minger, in order to be certain to get the attention of the operator/engineer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT). 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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. /PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604677
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593506
ARRAY SUBSTRATE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593505
FLEXIBLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588284
THIN-FILM TRANSISTOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588285
DISPLAY PANEL AND MOBILE TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
70%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+2.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 475 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