Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/931,145

A SINGLE BACKSIDE POWER PLANE FOR IMPROVED POWER DELIVERY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 12, 2022
Examiner
HANUMASAGAR, SHAMITA S
Art Unit
2814
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
7 granted / 8 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -33% lift
Without
With
+-33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
60
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Attorney Docket Number: P202200888US01 Filing Date: 09/12/2022 Claimed Priority Date: none Inventors: Lanzillo et al. Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar DETAILED ACTION This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 01/14/2026. 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection mailed on 10/28/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered. Amendment Status The RCE submission filed on 01/14/2026 as an amendment in reply to the Office action mailed on 10/28/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-5 and 7-20, with claims 18-20 remaining withdrawn from consideration. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. “Wherein the plurality of frontside contacts is located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices”, as recited in claims 1 and 10 “Wherein the plurality of backside contacts is located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices”, as recited in claims 1 and 10 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, the limitations of claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6 of claim 1 and line 6 of claim 10, “located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” should read “located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality of electronic devices” In line 11 of claim 1 and line 11 of claim 10, “located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” should read “located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality of electronic devices” Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following are quotations of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (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. (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. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to recite at least the new limitations “wherein the plurality of frontside contacts is located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” and “wherein the plurality of backside contacts is located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices”. The language as recited in the claims suggests that all of the plurality of frontside contacts is located on a first vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices and that all of the plurality of backside contacts is located on a second vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices. As discussed below, such limitations are directed to New Matter. Applicant has not alleged where support for the amendments to the claims can be found. However, a review of the written description fails to find any support for the claimed “plurality of frontside contacts… located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” and “plurality of backside contacts… located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” features. The specification as originally filed instead asserts the existence of “a plurality of frontside contacts, where each of the plurality of frontside contacts is connected to a frontside of one of the plurality electronic devices, respectively” and “a plurality of backside contacts, wherein the plurality of backside contacts is connected to a backside of one of the plurality electronic devices, respectively” (see, e.g., US 2024/0088036: par.0004/ll.2-5 and 6-9). Furthermore, the specification as originally filed additionally asserts that “the first device D1 is located on top of the first backside contact 110, the second device D2 is located on top of the second backside contact 115, and the MOL components are located on top of the third backside contact 120” (see, e.g., US 2024/0088036: par.0034/ll.20-22). Accordingly, the specification appears to provide support for each frontside contact of the plurality of frontside contacts being respectively located on a first side of one of the plurality (of) electronic devices and each backside contact of the plurality of backside contacts being respectively located on a second side of one of the plurality (of) electronic devices, and not the “plurality of frontside contacts… located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” and the “plurality of backside contacts… located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” as recited in the claim, wherein the claim language indicates that all of the plurality of frontside contacts is located on a first vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices and that all of the plurality of backside contacts is located on a second vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices. Similarly, a review of the Drawings fails to identify a “plurality of frontside contacts… located on a first vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices” and a “plurality of backside contacts… located on a second vertical side of one of the plurality electronic devices”, wherein the claim language indicates that all of the plurality of frontside contacts is located on a first vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices and all of the plurality of backside contacts is located on a second vertical side of a singular one of the plurality of electronic devices. The Drawings instead appear to show that each one of a plurality of frontside contacts is respectively located on a first side of one of the plurality (of) electronic devices and that each one of a plurality of backside contacts is respectively located on a second side of one of the plurality (of) electronic devices. Accordingly, the newly added limitations are directed to New Matter. The applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or demonstrate explicit support for the claimed subject matter in the original disclosure (e.g., by citing specific excerpts from Specification or features in Drawings related to the claimed embodiment, as originally filed). A broad statement alleging support for the claimed subject matter will be considered non-persuasive. Claims 2-5 and 7-9 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra. Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra. Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 8 and 16 recite the limitation “an insulator layer formed on the backside of the backside power plane”. No “backside” or side established to be a “backside” of the “backside power plane” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 and 17 recite the limitation “a backside metal layer formed on the backside of the insulator layer”. No “backside” or side established to be a “backside” of the “insulator layer” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 depends from claim 8 and thus inherits the deficiencies identified supra. Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and thus inherits the deficiencies identified supra. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 and 7 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten or otherwise established to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth in this Office action. Claims 10-15 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten or otherwise established to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth in this Office action. Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten or otherwise established to overcome (1) the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of the rejected base claim(s) set forth in this Office action and (2) the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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 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. /Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2022
Application Filed
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599025
CHIP PACKAGING STRUCTURE AND CHIP PACKAGING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12563779
Gate-all-around integrated structures having gate height reduction and dielectric capping material with shoulder portions inside gate stack
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12482777
COPPER PILLAR BUMP STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12408407
METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR WITH MULTIPLE DRAIN VIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 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
88%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (-33.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 8 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