Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/685,190

APPARATUS FOR TREATING SUBSTRATE AND SUBSTRATE INSPECTION METHOD IN LOAD LOCK CHAMBER

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 20, 2024
Priority
Jan 25, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0009677 +1 more
Examiner
ADAMS, GREGORY W
Art Unit
3652
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Psk Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
1053 granted / 1401 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1420
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
61.5%
+21.5% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1401 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation "substrates placed thereon do not overlap when viewed from above" was not in the application at the time of filing. As the courts have made clear, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lifly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (hereinafter "Ariad"). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. "Overlap" is defined as "to extend over or past and cover a part of." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlap.) However, claim 1 allows for no overlap. In other words, the amendment requires that both substrates be completely viewable when viewed from above. Fig. 3A and the specification discloses that there is at least partial overlap which does not support the new amendment. Thus, the amendment recites new matter unsupported in the application at the time of filing. To advance prosecution the following amendment is recommended: the first rotational supporter and the second rotational supporter are used for both an alignment inspection of a substrate and a vision inspection of a substrate, the first rotational supporter and the second rotational supporter each have different centers of rotation such that the centers of rotation Applicant is reminded this is a written description rejection, not an enablement rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-20 have been allowed. Claim 1 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. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm. 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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. /GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 20, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 01, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707618
FEEDER SETUP DEVICE AND FEEDER SETUP SYSTEM
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12686132
PICK AND PLACE DEVICE, PICK AND PLACE METHOD AND BATTERY PRODUCTION LINE
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686573
BLISTER PACKAGE STACKER
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686572
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BUILDING PALLETED GOODS
1y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12677747
Bale Stacker
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.8%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1401 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