Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/900,571

SELECTIVE DEPOSITION OF INHIBITOR MATERIAL AND DEPOSITION ASSEMBLIES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Priority
Sep 29, 2023 — provisional 63/586,830
Examiner
ROLLAND, ALEX A
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Asm Ip Holding B V
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allowance Rate
279 granted / 593 resolved
-18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
641
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
92.2%
+52.2% vs TC avg
§102
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 593 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illiberi (US 2021/0301394). Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, 18: Illiberi teaches a method for selective deposition on substrates having a silicon oxide surface (claimed “first surface”) and a metal surface (claimed “second surface”) [0033-0039] by silyating the silicon oxide surface with a silylation agent [0040]. The silylation agent is selected from chlorosilane, alkoxysilane, silyl halide, or nitrogen-bearing silane [0040]. Illiberi does not teach a silylation agent having an oxygen group and nitrogen/halogen group in a single embodiment. However, Illiberi does teach these functional groups separately used for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Illiberi using a silylation agent having both alkoxy groups and halogen/amine groups. Illiberi establishes that both of these groups are used in conjunction with a silicon-based inhibitor and combining them would have been expected to function in substantially the same manner. Claims 4-5: The surface to be passivated can be a metal oxide surface [0040] which are disclosed to include TaN [0037]. Claims 10-12, 14-16, 22-23: A silylation agent having both alkoxy groups and halogen/amine groups means the number of alkoxy groups can be from 1-3 and the number of halogen/amine groups can be from 1-3. The amine group can be a tertiary amine [0041]. The R groups are C1-C4 [0041-0042]. Claim 17: Temperature is 100-300°C [0044]. Claims 19, 21: It is the case that silicon oxide (the target material) is deposited on the inhibited first surface [0192]. Claim 20: A passivation blocking layer can also be added to the metal surface [0176]. Both are disclosed as being selective, so the order of deposition can be reversed and still achieve inhibition/passivation of both surfaces. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Illiberi [0042] explains that the silylating agents comprise R (alkyl groups) and A (any ligand which is reactive with the silicon oxide surface) as an explanation for the purpose of each of the functional groups. While this general formula specifies 3 R groups and 1 A group, we can see that multiple A groups are taught in [0040] the trichloro silylating agent (OD-TCS). Additionally, the possible A groups are specifically listed (chloro, alkoxy, amine, etc.) and are considered functional equivalents for the purpose of reacting with the silicon oxide surface. In sum, Illiberi renders obvious silylating agents having 1-3 A groups that are selected from the listed functional groups having reactivity with the silicon oxide surface. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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. /ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jan 29, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12616996
METHODS FOR COATING SUBSTRATES
3y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12613366
ARTICLE INCLUDING A STACK OF ALTERNATING LAYERS
6y 0m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12612522
NANOPARTICLE HYDROGELS
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606480
METHOD OF MAKING A REFLECTIVE COATED GLASS ARTICLE
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12594529
PREPARATION METHOD OF TI3C2TX MXENE QUANTUM DOT (MQD)-MODIFIED POLYAMIDE (PA) REVERSE-OSMOSIS (RO) MEMBRANE
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
47%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 9m (~2y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 593 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