Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/578,873

EMBEDDED TRANSISTOR DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 19, 2022
Examiner
KARIMY, TIMOR
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
X-Celeprint Limited
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
827 granted / 1011 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1059
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1011 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15-21, 23 & 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Pub. 2020/0411445) in view of Cook et al. (US Pub. 2018/0012786). Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an embedded component stack, comprising: a support substrate 102 (Fig. 4) a patterned first conductive layer formed on the support substrate 102 (see the annotations in Fig. 4 below); a first dielectric layer 300 disposed on the first conductive layer (Fig. 1 & Fig. 4); a patterned second conductive layer 300 formed on the first dielectric layer 300 (see Fig. 4); a first component embedded entirely within the first dielectric layer 300 and entirely between the patterned first conductive layer and the patterned second conductive layer (e.g. see Fig. 4 below); a second dielectric layer 300 formed on the second conductive layer (Fig. 4 below); and a second component disposed on or embedded entirely within the second dielectric layer 300 (see Fig. 3 below), wherein the patterned first conductive layer has a planar surface, the patterned second conductive layer has a planar surface, and the embedded component stack forms a solid structure (see Fig. 3 below). PNG media_image1.png 860 1050 media_image1.png Greyscale Chen is silent on wherein each of the first component and the second component comprises a broken or separated tether extending from or attached to a side of each of the first component and the second component, respectively. However, Cook teaches wherein a first component 205/305 and a second component 205/305 comprises a broken or separated tether 240/240C extending from or attached to a side of each of the first component and the second component, respectively (Fig. 14-Fig. 16). Tethers are remnants of a manufacturing technique where chips (components) are transferred to a substrate/host device. This technique presents the advantages of enabling placement of semiconductor components to create a more advanced, efficient and flexible electronics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen with the transfer and placement of semiconductor components, as taught by Cook, so as to obtain a more advanced, efficient and flexible semiconductor device. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the first component is a self- supporting structure comprising a component substrate 202 (Chen’s Fig. 1 and Fig. 4). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein each of the first component and the second component is or comprises an integrated circuit that can be an unpackaged bare die (Chen’s Fig.1 & Fig. 4). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the first component and the second component are one or more of: functionally similar, structurally similar, and substantially identical (Chen’s Fig. & Fig. 4). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the second component is at least partially directly above or below the first component in the stack (Chen’s Fig. 4). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein no portion of the second component is directly above or below the first component in the stack (e.g. Chen’s Fig. 8). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, comprising a patterned third conductive layer 400’ formed on the second dielectric layer 300, wherein the second component is embedded entirely within the second dielectric layer 300 and entirely between the patterned second conductive layer and the patterned third conductive layer (see Chen’s Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 11, comprising a third dielectric layer 300 formed on the patterned third conductive layer and a third component disposed on or embedded entirely within the third dielectric layer (see Chen’s Fig. 4 above). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the first component is electrically connected to the patterned first conductive layer, the first component is electrically connected to the second conductive layer, or the first component is electrically connected to the patterned first conductive layer and to the patterned second conductive layer (see Chen’s Fig. 4 & Fig. 5-9). Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, comprising an electrically conductive via disposed in and passing entirely through the first dielectric layer (see Chen’s Fig. 4 above). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 15, wherein (i) the first component is electrically connected to the electrically conductive via, (ii) the patterned first conductive layer is electrically connected to the electrically conductive via, (iii) the patterned second conductive layer is electrically connected to the electrically conductive via, or (iv) any combination of (i), (ii), (iii) (see Chen’s Fig. 4 above). Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the embedded component stack is an offset stack (e.g. Chen’s Fig. 9). Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the embedded component stack is an aligned stack (Chen’s Fig. 4). Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, comprising an electrically conductive via TSV disposed in and passing through the first component and electrically connected to the patterned first conductive layer and the patterned second conductive layer (Chen’s Fig. 12). Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, comprising a plurality of first components embedded entirely in the first dielectric layer 300, comprising a plurality of second components each disposed on or embedded in the second dielectric layer 300, or both (see Chen’s Fig. 6). Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1 or claim 21, wherein (i) the patterned first conductive layer is a metal layer, (ii) the patterned second conductive layer is a metal layer, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (Chen’s Fig. 4-9). Regarding claim 25, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the first component and the second component are each a transistor (Chen’s Para [0029 & 0034]). Regarding claim 26, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 25, wherein the first component and the second component are electrically connected in parallel (Chen’s Fig. 4). Regarding claim 27, the combination of Chen and Cook teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1, wherein the first component and the second component are non-native to the substrate 12 (Chen’s Fig. 4). Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches an embedded component stack, comprising: a support substrate 102 (Fig. 4) a patterned first conductive layer formed on the support substrate 102 (see Fig. 4 above); a first dielectric layer 300 disposed on the patterned first conductive layer (Fig. 4 above); a patterned second conductive layer 400’ formed on the first dielectric layer 300 (see Fig. 4 above); a component (see first component in Fig. 4 above) embedded entirely within the first dielectric layer 300 and entirely between the patterned first conductive layer and the patterned second conductive layer 400’ (see Fig. 4 above), wherein the patterned first conductive layer is directly electrically connected to the patterned second conductive layer (see Fig. 4 above), wherein the patterned first conductive layer has a planar surface, the patterned second conductive layer has a planar surface, and the embedded component stack forms a solid structure (see Fig. 4 above). Chen is silent on wherein each of the first component and the second component comprises a broken or separated tether extending from or attached to a side of each of the first component and the second component, respectively. However, Cook teaches wherein a first component 205/305 and a second component 205/305 comprises a broken or separated tether 240/240C extending from or attached to a side of each of the first component and the second component, respectively (Fig. 14-Fig. 16). Tethers are remnants of a manufacturing technique where chips (components) are transferred to a substrate/host device. This technique presents the advantages of enabling placement of semiconductor components to create a more advanced, efficient and flexible electronics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen with the transfer and placement of semiconductor components, as taught by Cook, so as to obtain a more advanced, efficient and flexible semiconductor device. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Cook as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of LEE et al. (US PUB. 2021/0098425). Regarding claims 6, the combination of Chen and Cook is silent on the embedded component stack of claim 5, wherein the first component is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the second components. However, LEE teaches wherein a first component (first chip) is rotated with respect to a second component (second chip); and wherein the rotation is 90 degrees or 180 degrees (see Para [0050]). This has the advantage of providing an alternative stacked layout/arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen & Cook with the rotated component layout, as taught by LEE, so as to provide an alternative stacked layout that could improve further scaling. Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Cook as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1 or claim 21, wherein the first component, the patterned first metal layer, the patterned second metal layer together have a thickness no greater 35 microns (e.g. Para [0040]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches the embedded component stack of claim 1 or claim 21, wherein each of the first component and the second component has (i) a length, a width, or both a length and a width of no greater than 200 microns and (ii) a thickness no greater than 50 microns (e.g. Para [0040]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829 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. /TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 19, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 08, 2024
Response Filed
May 07, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 07, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604472
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING STACK STRUCTURE AND TRENCHES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604784
STACK PACKAGES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598872
DISPLAY PANEL, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588460
SENSOR CONFIGURATION FOR PROCESS CONDITION MEASURING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588278
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING DIFFERENT SIZE ACTIVE REGIONS AND METHOD OF MAKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1011 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