Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/385,961

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 27, 2021
Examiner
BELL, LAUREN R
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
40%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 40% of cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
148 granted / 375 resolved
-28.5% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
436
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 375 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/5/2025 has been entered. 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. Claims 1-4 and 6 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a substrate protrusion and a plurality of nanowires stacked on the upper surface of the substrate,” is unclear as to which element(s) are required to be “on the upper surface of the substrate.” Regarding claim 1, the limitation “each of the plurality of nanowires comprises a triangle” is unclear because it appears to require each plurality to comprise a triangle, however there is understood to be only a single plurality of nanowires. Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the plurality of nanowires comprises a plane (a first down-slant face/a second down-slant face)” are unclear as to if the plurality comprises each feature, or if a nanowire/each of the nanowires of the plurality comprise each feature. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a total number of the plurality of nanowires” is unclear as to a total number of what element. Specifically, the limitation appears to require a total number of pluralities. Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vellianitis (US 2020/0035840; herein “Vellianitis”) Regarding claim 1, Vellianitis teaches in Fig. 16C (including features disclosed in association with Figs. 2-12) and related text a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (102/116, bottommost 106/206, see [0020], [0021], and [0028]) having an upper surface (e.g upper surface of bottommost 106/206); and substrate protrusion (e.g. bottommost 208) and a plurality of nanowires (e.g. the five upper 208, see [0060]; note that one can choose a subset of 208 as the “plurality of nanowires”) stacked on the upper surface of the substrate along a first direction, wherein the substrate protrusion and the substrate are integrally formed (e.g. formed of constituent parts or being an essential part of), and the substrate protrusion is triangular in a cross section (see Fig. 16C); wherein each of the plurality of nanowires comprise a triangle in the cross section (see Fig. 16C), and the plurality of nanowires comprise a plane extending along a second direction and corresponding to a top surface of a bottom surface of the triangle, a first down-slant facet on a (111) plane and corresponding to a sidewall of the triangle, and a second down-slant facet on an additional (111) plane corresponding to another sidewall of the triangle (see [0061]); and the substrate protrusion (bottommost 208) is mirror-symmetrical (see Fig. 16C) to a bottommost nanowire (e.g. 208 directly above bottommost 208) in the plurality of nanowires stacked along the first direction ; a total number of the plurality of nanowires (the five upper 208 as shown in Fig. 16C) stacked along the first direction is an odd number (e.g. five). Regarding claim 2, Vellianitis further discloses wherein an included angle between the plane extending along the second direction and the first down-slant facet ranges from 54.5 degrees to 55 degrees, and an included angle between the plane extending in the second direction and the second down-slant facet ranges from 54.5 degrees to 55 degrees (Ɵ4 and Ɵ5 equal 54.7˚, see [0062]). Regarding claim 3, Vellianitis further discloses wherein at least two of the plurality of nanowires are symmetrical to each other about a plane of symmetry extending along the second direction (see Fig. 16C). Regarding claim 6, Vellianitis further discloses wherein a topmost nanowire and a bottommost nanowire in the plurality of nanowires (the five upper 208) stacked along the first direction are inverted triangles in the cross section (see Fig. 16C; note that the bottommost nanowire of the “plurality of nanowires” is the fifth 208 from the top as shown in Fig. 16C). 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellianitis, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Cea et al. (US 2014/0042386; herein “Cea”). Regarding claim 4, Vellianitis does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the substrate and the plurality of nanowires comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material. In the same field of endeavor, Cea teaches in Figs. 1A-C and related text a semiconductor device wherein each of the substrate (102) and the plurality of nanowires (104) comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material (see [0039] and [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vellianitis by having the substrate and the nanowires comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material, as shown by Cea, in order to improve electrical properties of the nanowires. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. Specifically, it is noted that the substrate has been newly interpreted in the rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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. /LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 2/10/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604518
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588472
VIA ACCURACY MEASUREMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581934
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575197
PHOTONIC STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563957
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 375 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