Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/655,124

MULTI-LAYER FEATURE FILL

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT§DP
Filed
May 03, 2024
Priority
Jul 31, 2018 — provisional 62/712,863 +2 more
Examiner
SARKAR, ASOK K
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Lam Research Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
1017 granted / 1151 resolved
+20.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
1171
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
68.0%
+28.0% vs TC avg
§102
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§112
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1151 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 18 – 33 arerejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: The Claim 18 of the instant invention is taught by Claims 1 and 9 of US 12,014,928. Claim 19 of the instant invention is taught by Claim 3 of US 12,014,928. Claims 20 – 22 of the instant invention is taught by Claims 1 and 9 of US 12,014,928. of the instant invention is taught by Claims 4 – 6 and 9 of US 12,014,928. Claim 24 of the instant invention is taught by Claim 8 of US 12,014,928, Claims 26 and 27 of the instant invention are not taught by US 12,014,928. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims of US 12,014,928 to utilize these precursors, as they are well known. Claim 28of the instant invention is taught by Claim 11 of US 12,014,928. Claim 31 of the instant invention is taught by Claim 17 of US 12,014,928. Claims 32 and 33 of the instant invention are taught by Claims 1 and 9 of US 12,014,928. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims of US 12,014,928 to utilize these steps, as they are well known steps are undertaken to fill the high aspect ratio 3 – D structures. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASOK K SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571 - 272 - 1731. 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. /ASOK K SARKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 April 26, 2026.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 03, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12642017
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF
3y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641920
SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635125
Method of forming thin film, method of forming thin film structure, method of manufacturing capacitor, capacitor and memory device including the same
3y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12628581
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
3y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12628625
METHOD FOR FILLING GAP
2y 8m to grant Granted May 12, 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
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+9.2%)
1y 12m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1151 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