Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/677,909

VERTICAL TUNNELING FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTOR

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Feb 22, 2022
Examiner
BOATMAN, CASEY PAUL
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
52 granted / 64 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
49.3%
+9.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 64 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Amendment Amendment to claims 1 and 3 submitted on September 17, 2025 is acknowledged and has since been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iacopi (US 20100327319 A1). Regarding Claim 1, an integrated circuit (IC) device (shown Fig. 2B), comprising: a substrate (not illustrated, see [0013]); a gate insulator (4a); a first region (6), comprising a first semiconductor material (see [0114]) with dopants of a first type (n-type, shown Fig. 2B); a second region (2), comprising a second semiconductor material (see [0117]) with dopants of a second type (p-type, shown Fig. 2B), the second type different from the first type; and a channel region (5), comprising a third semiconductor material (see [0115]), wherein: the channel region is between the first region and the second region (shown Fig. 2B), the first region is between the channel region and the substrate (see [0013] which describes the vertical nanowire grown on a substrate), one of the first region and the second region is a source region of a transistor (see [0117] describing the second region as a source), and another one of the first region and the second region is a drain region of the transistor (see [0114] describing the first region as a rain); and the first region is in contact with (see [0118]) and wholly wrapped around by the gate insulator (see Fig. 2B and [0118] which describes the gate dielectric formed on the source-channel-drain structure and overlapping the first and second regions along a longitudinal direction). Regarding Claim 2, Iacopi teaches the IC device according to claim 1, further comprising: a gate (4a + 4b, shown Fig. 2B) wrapping around at least a portion of the channel region (shown Fig. 2B), wherein a longitudinal axis of the gate is orthogonal to the substrate (described in [0013]). Regarding Claim 3, Iacopi teaches the IC device according to claim 2, wherein the gate comprises: the gate insulator wrapping around at least a portion of the channel region (shown Fig. 2B); and a gate electrode (4b) wrapping around at least a portion of the gate insulator (shown Fig. 2B). Regarding Claim 4, Iacopi teaches the IC device according to claim 1, wherein the dopants of the first type are n-type dopants and the dopants of the second type are p-type dopants (see Fig. 2B). Regarding Claim 5, Iacopi teaches the IC device according to claim 1, wherein the first semiconductor material (see selection in [0034]) is different from the second semiconductor material (see selection in [0035]) or the third semiconductor material (wherein the third semiconductor material is the same as the first semiconductor material, see also [0026]). Regarding Claim 6, Iacopi teaches the IC device according to claim 1, wherein the first semiconductor material (Si, see [0034]), the second semiconductor material (Si, see [0035]), and the third semiconductor material (Si, wherein the third semiconductor material is the same as the first semiconductor material, see [0026]) are the same. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET. 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588306
IMAGE SENSORS COMPRISING AN ARRAY OF INTERFERENCE FILTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568163
DISPLAY PANEL AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563796
EXTENDED LOWER SOURCE/DRAIN FOR STACKED FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563764
COMPLEMENTARY HIGH ELECTRON MOBILITY TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550404
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
81%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 64 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