Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 19/228,490

METHOD FOR DEPOSITING TARGET MATERIAL IN DEPOSITION CHAMBER WITH TILTABLE WORKPIECE HOLDER

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jun 04, 2025
Priority
Oct 18, 2019 — divisional of 11/742,231 +1 more
Examiner
CHEN, BRET P
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
975 granted / 1154 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1154 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, which is a CON of Serial Number 17/869139, now US Patent 12,341,042; which is a DIV of Serial Number 16/657841, now US Patent 11,742,231. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities listed below. Appropriate correction is required. In paragraph 0001, the lineage should be updated to reflect maturation into a US Patent. 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. Claim 2-4 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 2 line 2, from which claim 3 depends, the phrase “tilting the workpiece holder in response to …” is deemed confusing and/or lacks antecedent basis as the phrase has not been previously mentioned (emphasis underlined). In claim 4 line 2, the terms “first and second temperatures of the heater” lack antecedent basis. There is support for a temperature of a heating coil. In claim 4 line 2, the term “the tilt” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 4 line 3, the term “the holder” lacks antecedent basis. It is assumed that this term refers to the workpiece holder. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because adjusting is a broader term than tilting and thus an obvious variation. Chu teaches “a method, comprising: supporting a workpiece on a workpiece holder within a material deposition chamber; rotating the workpiece holder; tilting the workpiece holder in response to an output of a determination circuit; controlling a temperature of the workpiece; and depositing a material on the workpiece, wherein controlling a temperature of the workpiece includes: providing a heater on the workpiece holder, the heater having a first zone, a second zone, and a third zone on a first surface of the heater; tuning the first zone to a first temperature by a first heating coil in the first zone: tuning the second zone to a second temperature different from the first temperature by a second heating coil in the second zone; and tuning the third zone to a third temperature different from the first temperature and the second temperature by a third heating coil in the third zone, wherein the first zone is located on a center of the first surface of the heater, the second zone is arranged to surround the first zone along a circumference of the first zone, the third zone is arranged to surround the second zone along a circumference of the second zone, and the second zone is between the first zone and the third zone from a plan view” (claim 1) which is similar to pending claim 1. The claimed term “tilting” is one form of adjusting and this is an obvious variation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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. /BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 09/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12741913
DISPERSION OF FILAMENTS
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740350
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12735787
GROUP 2 METAL CONTAINING FILM FORMING COMPOSITIONS AND VAPOR DEPOSITION OF THE FILMS USING THE SAME
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12724349
MONODISPERSE GRANULAR FILM, METHOD FOR FORMING THE MONODISPERSE GRANULAR FILM, SOLAR CELL, METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SOLAR CELL, AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12716127
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DOPED DIAMOND LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.4%)
2y 7m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1154 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