Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/846,614

COATING MODULE WITH IMPROVED CATHODE ARRANGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 12, 2024
Examiner
OTT, PATRICK S
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Singulus Technologies AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
140 granted / 209 resolved
+2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
251
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 209 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 21-29 in the reply filed on 10/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Interpretation In claims 5 and 21, in the limitation “mounted in the process chamber and removed from it as a unit”, the word “it” is understood as referring to the process chamber. 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 1-3, 5-14, and 25-28 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. In claim 1, the limitation “the target side” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a target side and thus it is unclear what is being referred to. In claims 9 and 25, the limitation “the inner side” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of an inner side of the chamber lid and thus it is unclear what is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “an inner side”. In claims 11 and 27, the limitations “the thickness” and “the vacuum” lack antecedent basis and thus are indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a thickness of the chamber lid or a vacuum provided during operation and thus it is unclear what is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a thickness” and “a vacuum”. In claim 14, the limitations “the inner side of the ring” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “ring” or an “inner side” of the ring. In particular, it is unclear whether the “ring” is intended to refer to a ring formed by the modules arranged annularly or another ring. In claim 28, the limitation “the fluid and/or energy” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because claim 4 does not recite a fluid and/or energy and therefore it is unclear what is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a fluid and/or energy”. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 26 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim. 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) 1-3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), and Deehan (US 20100101602 A1). Regarding claim 1, Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) teaches a coating module comprising a processing chamber 30 that may be pumped to vacuum (can be evacuated), a top cover 58 (chamber lid) that closes the chamber in a vacuum tight manner, and a coating unit consisting of a target 54, a backing plate (backplate), a magnet carrier 59 (magnet system), and a shield 46 with a dark space ring groove 55 formed around the target (dark space shield), where the target, backplate, and shield are mounted in the process chamber, where the magnet is mounted in the chamber lid (col 7 line 5-67, col 8 line 1-3, col 10 line 7-15; Fig. 1-2, 15, 20). Hosokawa fails to explicitly teach the magnet system is mounted on the chamber lid. However, Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a movable magnet sweep mechanism 116 (magnet system) connected and mounted to (on) the chamber cap 113 (lid), wherein the lid may be lifted in a similar manner to Hosokawa (col 16 line 54-59, col 18 line 60-67, col 19 line 1-10; Fig. 31-32, 39-40). Hosokawa similarly teaches a linearly scanning magnet carrier 59 within the top cover (col 7 line 62-67, col 8 line 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the scanning magnet of Hosokawa with the magnet sweep mechanism of Demaray1, which is mounted on the chamber cap/lid, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 fails to explicitly teach a media supply is provided for providing the coating unit with a fluid and/or energy on the target side. However, Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a PVD chamber may include a gas supply 110 (media supply) for providing a processing gas (fluid) to the coating unit on a target side of the chamber (para 0023; Fig. 1). Hosokawa teaches that the sputtering involves the ionization of gas molecules in the processing chamber (col 1 line 64-67, col 2 line 1-9, col 10 line 17-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas supply connected to the sidewall of the chamber of Hosokawa, as described by Deehan, in order to supply the process gas required for sputtering. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan teaches the target 54, backing plate, and shield 46 are not connected directly to the chamber lid 58 and thus the magnet unit attached to the chamber lid would be separated from the rest of the coating unit when the lid is lifted by swinging on hinges (62, 63) (Hosokawa col 7 line 30-67, col 8 line 1-3; Fig. 1-2). Alternatively, the chamber lid 58 and the attached magnet unit are separated from the rest of the coating unit when lifting the disassembled lid from the rest of the process chamber components (Hosokawa Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan teaches that the gas supply 110 is connected to the wall of the chamber and thus remains static while the chamber lid is lifted from the process chamber (Deehan Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan teaches the chamber lid 58 and magnet system 59 form a flat separation plane that engages with a corresponding flat separation plane of the process chamber at the upper insulator 56, wherein the lid forms a chamber into which a vacuum can be pulled (vacuum-tight) (Hosokawa col 7 line 5-67, col 8 line 1-3; Fig. 2-3). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan teaches the chamber lid can be swung open manually by a lift handle 60 (Hosokawa col 7 line 30-40; Fig. 1). Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), and Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoong (US 20210124253 A1). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan fails to explicitly teach the coating target, target backplate, and dark space shield form a preassembled group which can be mounted in the process chamber and removed from it as a unit. However, Yoong (US 20210124253 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the target 412 is attached to the backing plate 414 and the shield 418 is connected to the backing plate through a shield support 410 (para 0049-0052; Fig. 4). Hosokawa teaches a backing plate attached/bonded to the target and a shield next to the backing plate where the shield may be isolated from the rest of the chamber (col 7 line 40-61, col 9 line 15-50; Fig. 2, 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shield attachment of Hosokawa with the shield attachment to the backing plate through a shield support because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the target, backing plate, and shield would all be connected (pre-assembled group) and capable of being mounted or removed from the chamber as a unit. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, Deehan, and Yoong teaches the shield may have a different bias from the target applied and may be attached through an insulating material to separate the shield from other components (Hosokawa col 9 line 15-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the shield support out of an insulating material to allow for separate biases to be applied to the shield and target (connected in an insulated manner). Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), and Yoong (US 20210124253 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kerschbaumer (US 20200090915 A1). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, Deehan, and Yoong fails to explicitly teach a spring member configured for positioning the pre-assembled group of the coating target, target backplate, and dark space shield in a defined manner in the process chamber and configured for contacting the pre-assembled group. However, Kerschbaumer (US 20200090915 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a sputtering target 10 may be constructed to fit into a holding device and fixed by a spring 40 that prevents the target from disconnecting, where the target is attached to a cooling plate (backing plate) (para 0023, 0046, 0049-0050; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target assembly of Hosokawa involving attaching the target directly to the backing plate with the target assembly of Kerschbaumer including a holding device and spring. As a result, a spring member configured for at least indirectly contacting the target and positioning the target relative to the backing plate is included (configured for positioning the pre-assembled group in a defined manner in the process chamber and configured for contacting the pre-assembled group). Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), and Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binns (US 20150262798 A1). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan fails to explicitly teach the inner side of the chamber lid comprises a concave curvature. However, Binns (US 20150262798 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a lid/cover 177 may have a curved shape (para 0027; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape of the lid of Hosokawa with the curved shaped lid of Binns because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or in addition, changing the shape of the lid would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the lid was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, Deehan, and Binns teaches the concave curvature of the lid 177 includes a section that is spherical in shape (Binns Fig. 1). Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), and Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demaray2 (US 20070045108 A1). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan fails to explicitly teach the target backplate comprises one or more protrusions wherein connections for the fluid and/or energy are provided on the protrusions. However, Demaray2 (US 20070045108 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a sputtering target 220 bonded to a backing plate 200 configured to be cooled and having coolant supply and drain accesses 206 and electrical pin 208 (protrusions) configured to receive coolant and power from a generator (media supply), respectively (connections for the fluid and/or energy are provided on the protrusions) (para 0033-0034, 0057-0058; Fig. 2A, 2B, 3). Hosokawa teaches the target material is usually cooled by a liquid such as water (col 4 line 12-32, col 7 line 40-61) and necessarily requires a power source for generating plasma for sputtering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include coolant accesses and an electrical pin protruding from the backing plate, as described by Demaray2, to supply coolant and power to the target assembly. As a result, the combination includes a media supply (generator/coolant supply) for providing the backing plate (coating unit) with a fluid and/or energy on the target side and one or more protrusions where connections for the fluid and/or energy are provided on. Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), and Deehan (US 20100101602 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hollars (US 6488824 B1). Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Deehan fails to explicitly teach additional modules wherein the modules are arranged substantially annularly and wherein the chamber lid of the coating module can be swung open in the direction of the inner side of the ring. However, Hollars (US 6488824 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches multiple sputtering modules can be arranged in a circular (annular) arrangement for batch coating different materials (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the coating module of Hosokawa in view of Demaray1 and Deehan with a circular/annular arrangement of other modules for batch coating different films. Hosokawa teaches the chamber lid can be swung open by a lift handle along hinges (col 7 line 30-40). The combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, Deehan, and Hollars fails to explicitly teach the chamber lid can be swung open in the direction of the inner side of the ring. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the coating module such that the lid swings open in the direction of the inner side of the ring because shifting the position/direction of the lid hinges would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Alternatively, the claim does not define the “inner side” or “the ring” and thus any direction may be considered the direction of “the inner side of the ring”. Claim(s) 4, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A). Regarding claim 4, Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) teaches a coating module comprising a processing chamber 30 that may be pumped to vacuum (can be evacuated), a top cover 58 (chamber lid) that closes the chamber in a vacuum tight manner, and a coating unit consisting of a target 54, a backing plate (backplate), a magnet carrier 59 (magnet system), and a shield 46 with a dark space ring groove 55 formed around the target (dark space shield), where the target, backplate, and shield are mounted in the process chamber, where the magnet is mounted in the chamber lid, and wherein the target, backing plate, and dark space shield are not directly connected to the chamber lid (col 7 line 5-67, col 8 line 1-3, col 10 line 7-15; Fig. 1-2, 15, 20). Hosokawa fails to explicitly teach the magnet system is mounted on the chamber lid. However, Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a movable magnet sweep mechanism 116 (magnet system) connected and mounted to (on) the chamber cap 113 (lid), wherein the lid may be lifted in a similar manner to Hosokawa (col 16 line 54-59, col 18 line 60-67, col 19 line 1-10; Fig. 31-32, 39-40). Hosokawa similarly teaches a linearly scanning magnet carrier 59 within the top cover (col 7 line 62-67, col 8 line 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the scanning magnet of Hosokawa with the magnet sweep mechanism of Demaray1, which is mounted on the chamber cap/lid, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 teaches the target 54, backing plate, and shield 46 are not connected directly to the chamber lid 58 and thus the magnet unit attached to the chamber lid would be separated from the rest of the coating unit when the lid is lifted by swinging on hinges (62, 63) (Hosokawa col 7 line 30-67, col 8 line 1-3; Fig. 1-2). Alternatively, the chamber lid 58 and the attached magnet unit are separated from the rest of the coating unit when lifting the disassembled lid from the rest of the process chamber components (Hosokawa Fig. 1). Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 teaches the chamber lid 58 and magnet system 59 form a flat separation plane that engages with a corresponding flat separation plane of the process chamber at the upper insulator 56, wherein the lid forms a chamber into which a vacuum can be pulled (vacuum-tight) (Hosokawa col 7 line 5-67, col 8 line 1-3; Fig. 2-3). Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 teaches the chamber lid can be swung open manually by a lift handle 60 (Hosokawa col 7 line 30-40; Fig. 1). Claim(s) 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yoong (US 20210124253 A1). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 fails to explicitly teach the coating target, target backplate, and dark space shield form a preassembled group which can be mounted in the process chamber and removed from it as a unit. However, Yoong (US 20210124253 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the target 412 is attached to the backing plate 414 and the shield 418 is connected to the backing plate through a shield support 410 (para 0049-0052; Fig. 4). Hosokawa teaches a backing plate attached/bonded to the target and a shield next to the backing plate where the shield may be isolated from the rest of the chamber (col 7 line 40-61, col 9 line 15-50; Fig. 2, 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shield attachment of Hosokawa with the shield attachment to the backing plate through a shield support because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the target, backing plate, and shield would all be connected (pre-assembled group) and capable of being mounted or removed from the chamber as a unit. Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Yoong teaches the shield may have a different bias from the target applied and may be attached through an insulating material to separate the shield from other components (Hosokawa col 9 line 15-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the shield support out of an insulating material to allow for separate biases to be applied to the shield and target (connected in an insulated manner). Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A) and Yoong (US 20210124253 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kerschbaumer (US 20200090915 A1). Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Yoong fails to explicitly teach a spring member configured for positioning the pre-assembled group of the coating target, target backplate, and dark space shield in a defined manner in the process chamber and configured for contacting the pre-assembled group. However, Kerschbaumer (US 20200090915 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a sputtering target 10 may be constructed to fit into a holding device and fixed by a spring 40 that prevents the target from disconnecting, where the target is attached to a cooling plate (backing plate) (para 0023, 0046, 0049-0050; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target assembly of Hosokawa involving attaching the target directly to the backing plate with the target assembly of Kerschbaumer including a holding device and spring. As a result, a spring member configured for at least indirectly contacting the target and positioning the target relative to the backing plate is included (configured for positioning the pre-assembled group in a defined manner in the process chamber and configured for contacting the pre-assembled group). Claim(s) 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Binns (US 20150262798 A1). Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 fails to explicitly teach the inner side of the chamber lid comprises a concave curvature. However, Binns (US 20150262798 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a lid/cover 177 may have a curved shape (para 0027; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape of the lid of Hosokawa with the curved shaped lid of Binns because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or in addition, changing the shape of the lid would have been obvious to one skilled in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the lid was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hosokawa, Demaray1, and Binns teaches the concave curvature of the lid 177 includes a section that is spherical in shape (Binns Fig. 1). Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (US 5518593 A) in view of Demaray1 (US 5487822 A), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Demaray2 (US 20070045108 A1). Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hosokawa and Demaray1 fails to explicitly teach the target backplate comprises one or more protrusions wherein connections for the fluid and/or energy are provided on the protrusions. However, Demaray2 (US 20070045108 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches a sputtering target 220 bonded to a backing plate 200 configured to be cooled and having coolant supply and drain accesses 206 and electrical pin 208 (protrusions) configured to receive coolant and power from a generator, respectively (connections for the fluid and/or energy are provided on the protrusions) (para 0033-0034, 0057-0058; Fig. 2A, 2B, 3). Hosokawa teaches the target material is usually cooled by a liquid such as water (col 4 line 12-32, col 7 line 40-61) and necessarily requires a power source for generating plasma for sputtering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include coolant accesses and an electrical pin protruding from the backing plate, as described by Demaray2, to supply coolant and power to the target assembly. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 11 and 27, the aforementioned references fail to teach the concave curvature is “designed in relation to the thickness of the chamber lid and the vacuum provided during operation in such a way that the inner side of the chamber lid is configured in a flat manner under vacuum”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, claims 11 and 27 contain allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. /PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595549
OPTICAL FILTER INCLUDING A HIGH REFRACTIVE INDEX MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597587
PROCESS CHAMBERS HAVING MULTIPLE COOLING PLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584207
METHOD OF DEPOSITING AN ALUMINUM NITRIDE (AIN) THIN FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588448
METHOD FOR PREPARING A CROSS SECTION WITH A FOCUSED ION BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581926
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING A SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
67%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+21.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 209 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