Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/232,808

REMOTE CAPACITIVELY COUPLED PLASMA DEPOSITION OF AMORPHOUS SILICON

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Priority
Mar 28, 2018 — provisional 62/649,000 +2 more
Examiner
MAYY, MOHAMMAD
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Applied Materials Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
Est. Remaining
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allowance Rate
200 granted / 416 resolved
-16.9% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
454
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
87.4%
+47.4% vs TC avg
§102
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§112
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 416 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Claim 1-20 pending 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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,986 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 state “A method, comprising: generating a plasma within a plasma unit in fluid communication with a process chamber, wherein the plasma unit comprises a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) unit; flowing the plasma through an ion suppressor to produce an activated fluid comprising reactive species and neutral species, wherein the activated fluid has an ion concentration of about 70% to about 99% less than an ion concentration of the plasma; flowing a mixture of the activated fluid and a silicon precursor to a substrate disposed in the process chamber; and forming an amorphous silicon layer on the substrate.” This is disclosed in claim 1 of Pat ‘986. Claims 2-7 are disclosed in 1-6 of Pat ’986. Claim 8 state “A method, comprising: generating a plasma within a plasma unit in fluid communication with a process chamber, wherein the plasma unit comprises a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) unit; flowing the plasma through an ion suppressor to produce an activated fluid comprising reactive species and neutral species, wherein the activated fluid has an ion concentration of about 70% to about 99% less than an ion concentration of the plasma; flowing a mixture of the activated fluid, a silicon precursor, and a dopant precursor into the process chamber; and exposing a substrate disposed in the process chamber to the mixture to form an amorphous silicon layer on the substrate.” This is disclosed in claim 7 of Pat ‘986. Claims 9-13 are disclosed in 7-12 of Pat ’986. Claim 14 state “A method, comprising: generating a plasma within a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) unit in fluid communication with a process chamber; flowing the plasma through an ion suppressor to produce an activated fluid comprising reactive species and neutral species, wherein the activated fluid has an ion concentration of about 70% to about 99% less than an ion concentration of the plasma; flowing a mixture of the activated fluid and a silicon precursor into the process chamber; and exposing a substrate disposed in the process chamber to the mixture to form an amorphous silicon layer on the substrate.” This is disclosed in claim 13 of Pat ‘986. Claims 15-20 are disclosed in 13-18 of Pat ’986. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST. 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. /Mohammad Mayy/ Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12685068
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12654478
Method and System For Controlling Morphology and Properties Of Printed Reactive Inks
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12649265
Method for obtaining an object through the use of machine tools
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12648376
SELECTIVE TANTALUM NITRIDE DEPOSITION FOR BARRIER APPLICATIONS
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12638398
METHOD FOR GRAIN BOUNDARY ANALYSIS OF POLYCRYSTALLINE TWO-DIMENSIONAL MATERIALS
3y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 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
48%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 2m (~2y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 416 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