Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/029,961

METHOD FOR DETERMINING DEFECTIVENESS OF PATTERN BASED ON AFTER DEVELOPMENT IMAGE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Priority
Sep 05, 2019 — EU 19195527.7 +7 more
Examiner
BAKER, CHARLOTTE M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
ASML Holding N.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allowance Rate
1013 granted / 1093 resolved
+32.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1096
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§103
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1093 resolved cases

Office Action

§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. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,332,573) (hereinafter ‘573). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Current Application ‘573 Claim 1: obtaining an after development image (ADI) of a substrate, the ADI comprising a plurality of features; generating a first part of a model based on physical characteristic values related to a subset of features of the ADI; and generating a second part of the model based upon the first part of the model and the physical characteristic values related to all the features of the plurality of features of the ADI, wherein the subset of features of the ADI are differentiated from other features of the ADI. Claim 1: obtaining, via a metrology tool, (i) an after development image of the imaged substrate at a given location, the after development image including a plurality of features, and (ii) an after etch image of the imaged substrate at the given location, the after etch image including etched features corresponding to the plurality of features; and training, using the after development image and the after etch image, the model configured to determine defectiveness of a given feature of the plurality of features in the after development image, wherein the determining of defectiveness is based on comparing the given feature in the after development image with a corresponding etch feature in the after etch image. Claims 17-30 of the current application do not correspond to any claims on ‘573. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 28-30 are allowed. The closest prior art, US 2019/0005357 A1 (“Bhavripudi et al.”); KR-20190062606-A (“Hsu et al.”), fail to anticipate or render obvious at least the above limitations. Claims 17-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and provided the Double Patenting Rejection is overcome. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLOTTE M BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7459. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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. /CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664 20 August 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12744856
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12738045
USE OF A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL TO UPDATE ANOTHER MACHINE LEARNING MODEL
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12737902
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING BOX SHAPE REPRESENTATION OF A GENERALLY CUBOIDAL OBJECT
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12705720
SELF-TRAINABLE NEURAL NETWORK APPLICATION FOR ANOMALY DETECTION OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12705915
QUANTITATIVE DISORDER ENHANCED AUGMENTATIVE/ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND PROCESS
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 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
93%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+0.3%)
2y 0m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1093 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