Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/650,139

COVER ASSEMBLY OF SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING TOOL

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
516 granted / 764 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
789
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 764 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 11-18, 21-32) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: gas intake apparatus (e.g. a fan device) in at least claim 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 11-18, 31-32 are 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. Claim 11 recites “a cover” but it is unclear if said recitation refers to the cover assembly or the cover body. Claim 11 is interpreted to refer to the cover body. Claim 11 recites “a first line connecting a center the first gas intake apparatus with a center of upper of the cover body” which renders claim 11 indefinite. Claim 11 is interpreted such that the first gas intake apparatus (e.g. a fan or blower) is configured to direct the gas to flow in a first direction into the inner space of the cover assembly, wherein, from a top view perspective (e.g. of the cover body), the first direction is angularly offset relative to a first line substantially corresponding to a (central) axis of rotation of the gas intake apparatus. Claim 15 is similarly rejected and interpreted. Claims 12-18 are rejected in view of their dependence from claim 11. Claims 31-32 recite that the gas flowing into the inner space of the cover body is “free from flowing directly towards a center of the process chamber cap” but it is unclear how a flow of gas can be “free” from flowing in a certain direction. Claims 31-32 are interpreted such that the gas flowing into the inner space of the cover body substantially flows along a direction angularly offset relative to a (central) axis of rotation of the gas intake apparatus. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CUI (CN 107429393). Regarding claims 11-12, Cui teaches a cover assembly 200 for covering a process chamber cap of a semiconductor manufacturing tool, comprising: a cover body 200 having a sidewall substantially surrounding the process chamber cap 300, see Figs. 1-2A ; a first gas intake apparatus 250 disposed on the sidewall of the cover body and configured to provide a gas into an inner space of the cover body (purifying line 250 can be connected to a purge gas source, as previously described for the processing chamber, and a purge gas can comprises a non-reactive gas, such as nitrogen or an inert gas. purifying line provides plug-in between the purge gas 205 with the annular manifold to remove process gas not needed in these areas. Therefore, the purge gas protecting sensitive material damage process gas, such as O-ring material, when exposed to a reactive process gas (for example, metal halide precursors) can be degradation over time); and a gas outlet 210 fluid delivery line 210 disposed at an upper of the cover body and configured to expel the gas from the inner space of the cover body , wherein the first gas intake apparatus is configured to direct the gas to flow in a first direction into the inner space of the cover; and wherein, from a top view perspective, the first direction is angularly offset ( perpendicular at 90 degrees relative to a first line connecting a center the first gas intake apparatus with a center of upper of the cover body (note that the limitation of a line connecting a center of the first gas intake apparatus with a center of the cover body is interpreted as best understood as being the vertical center line axis passing from gas intake apparatus and also the vertical axis of the cover body). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-31 are allowed. Claims 13-18, 31-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Maeda, Abe may teach semiconductor manufacturing tools comprising gas intake apparatus and gas outlets, but they do not teach wherein the gas intake apparatus (e.g. a fan or blower) is configured to direct the gas to flow in a first direction into the inner space of the cover assembly, wherein, from a top view perspective (e.g. of the cover body), the first direction is angularly offset relative to a first line substantially corresponding to a (central) axis of rotation of the gas intake apparatus. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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. /Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590651
SEALING ELEMENT FOR SEALING FLUID LINES IN A FEED-THROUGH OPENING OF A WALL AND SEALING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE SEALING ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MOUNTING THE SEALING ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590717
ELECTRIC CONTROL BOX OF AIR CONDITIONER AND AIR CONDITIONER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590715
Air Conditioner Condenser Unit
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584685
Magnetic Ice Cube System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571548
WATER TANK MODULE FOR AIR-CONDITIONING WATER SYSTEM AND AIR-CONDITIONING WATER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
68%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 764 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