Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/028,001

INTERNALLY STACKED NPN WITH SEGMENTED COLLECTOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 22, 2020
Examiner
LI, MEIYA
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
4 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
628 granted / 912 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
964
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 912 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Objections Claims 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: "inconsistent terminologies. "The current paths" should read "the plurality of current paths”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the specification for the claim limitations of "a current flow between each linear array of collector contacts of the plurality of linear arrays of collector contacts and the emitter region follow a direct path along respective current paths of the plurality of current paths between respective adjacent pairs of the trench regions of the array of trench regions", as recited in claim 22. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 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 20-31 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. The claimed limitation of "collector contacts", as recited in claims 20 (lines 14-15) 22 and 23, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “collector contacts”, as recited in claim 20, line 13. The claimed limitation of "an adjacent linear array of collector contacts", as recited in claim 20, line 14-15, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “collector contacts” and/or "a plurality of linear arrays of collector contacts", as recited in claim 20, line 13-14. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the respective adjacent pairs of trench regions of the array of trench regions" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a respective adjacent pair of trench region of the array of trench regions”, as recited in claim 20. The claimed limitation of "trench regions of the array of trench regions ", as recited in claim 21, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “trench regions of the array of trench regions”, as recited in claim 20. The claimed limitation of "respective adjacent pairs of the trench regions of the array of trench regions", as recited in claim 22, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a respective adjacent pair of trench regions of the array of trench regions ", as recited in claim 20. The claimed limitation of "emitter contacts", as recited in claims 30 (lines 12-13) 31, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “emitter contacts”, as recited in claim 30, line 11. The claimed limitation of "an adjacent linear array of emitter contacts", as recited in claim 30, line 12-13, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “emitter contacts” and/or "a plurality of linear arrays of emitter contacts", as recited in claim 30, line 11-12. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20-31 and 42 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “an array of trench regions withing the doped region, the array of trench regions conductively isolated from the buried layer and located between the collector region and the emitter region to provide a plurality of current paths between the collector region and the emitter region, the plurality of current paths including each current path between a respective adjacent pair of trench regions of the array of trench regions”, as recited in claim 20; “an array of trench regions withing the doped region, the array of trench regions conductively isolated from the buried layer and located between the collector region and the emitter region such that a current between the collector region and the emitter region flows between trench region of the array of trench regions”, as recited in claim 30 and 42. Claims 20-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM. 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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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. /MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2020
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 20, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 27, 2023
Response Filed
May 31, 2023
Response Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 05, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598744
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575120
DEPOSITING A STORAGE NODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12520484
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12520731
MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506077
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+26.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 912 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