Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/794,556

SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 05, 2024
Priority
Nov 20, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0160848
Examiner
OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN LEE
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
58%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
835 granted / 1025 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -23% lift
Without
With
+-23.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
1043
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.2%
+4.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1025 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 The Restriction Requirement and Election of Species Requirement issued on 16 October 2025 and 26 February 2026, respectively, are hereby fully withdrawn. All claims, 1-20, stand rejoined and are in condition for examination. 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: “first connection member” in claims 1, 9, and 15, and “second connection member” in claims 3, 5, and 10. 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, as in paragraph 53. 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 1-20 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. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant claims that the first and second nozzles are disposed on the stage, in lines 5 and 7; 4 and 6; and 15 and 18, respectively. This is contrary to the drawings and to what is taught by the Specification in paragraphs 31, 44, 49, and 56. Applicant in all of these instances teaches that the nozzles are disposed, at times, over the stage and not on the stage. Therefore, this claim language is indefinite. Regarding claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, these claims are rejected for depending upon claims 1, 9, and 15, and thereby contain all of the same indefiniteness issues thereof. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 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. Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant claims a substrate processing apparatus along with processing method thereof, comprising: a stage; a rotation driving portion, a first nozzle arm, a second nozzle arm, and wherein the first nozzle arm comprises: a first nozzle, a first connection member having a stepwise shape, and a first nozzle couple to the first connection member along with configurations thereof. The closest prior art of record is that of JP 2021034738 to Bang et al. (Bang). Bang discloses a substrate processing apparatus along with processing method thereof, comprising: a stage; a rotation driving portion, a first nozzle arm, a second nozzle arm, and wherein the first nozzle arm comprises: a first nozzle, a first connection member, and a first nozzle couple to the first connection member along with configurations thereof. Bang does not disclose or make obvious wherein a first connection member having a stepwise shape. The advantage of the current invention over that of the prior art to Bang is that of the configuration of the first connection member having a stepwise shape wherein this allows for the first connection member to engage with a second connection member to thereby reduce a horizontal distance between the first and second nozzles to thereby allow for the spraying of fluids with a reduced interval time and drying thereof to thereby improve a processing efficiency and increase a processing accuracy of a substrate by preventing a pattern collapse of a substrate thereof. Since claims 1, 9 and 15 would be allowed, should the 35 USC 112 rejections as above be cured, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 which depend thereon would also be allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (571)270-7379. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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. BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 28, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 28, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746585
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THE FLUID FLOW-BASED CLEANING OF MOUTHPIECES AND/OR HOSES OF A SHISHA
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746794
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THERMAL MANAGEMENT OF VEHICLE SENSOR DEVICES
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12735827
CLOTHES CARE APPARATUS
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735829
CLOTHES TREATING APPARATUS
1y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729479
COOL DOWN LOGIC FOR CONDENSING TYPE DRYERS
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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
82%
Grant Probability
58%
With Interview (-23.1%)
2y 11m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1025 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