Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/994,007

Semiconductor structure and the forming method thereof

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 25, 2022
Examiner
KHALIFA, MOATAZ
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
94%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 94% — above average
94%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 53 resolved
+26.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
98
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
70.6%
+30.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 53 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 . Remarks The 12/07/2025 amendments of claim 1 has been noted and entered. The 12/07/2025 amendments of the specification have been noted and entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-12, filed 12/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chern et al, US 20160086949 A1 (Chern). New Grounds for Rejection New grounds for rejection, prior art reference Chern et al, US 20160086949 A1 (Chern) appears below. 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. Claims 1, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Disney, US 20030060001 A1 (Disney) in view of Chern et al, US 20160086949 A1 (Chern). Regarding claim 1; Disney teaches a semiconductor structure comprising: a substrate (100); a gate dielectric layer ((102a)+(106)) on the substrate (100), wherein the gate dielectric layer ((102a)+(106)) comprises two sidewall portions (106) and a horizontal portion (102a), and the horizontal portion (102a) is located between the two sidewall portions (106), wherein the height of the horizontal portion (102a) is lower than the height of the two sidewall portions (106), and the horizontal portion (102a) and the two sidewall portions (106) are perpendicular to each other; and a gate conductive layer (113a) located on the horizontal portion (102a) of the gate dielectric layer, wherein the gate conductive layer (113a) and the gate dielectric layer ((102a)+(106)) are combined into a gate. PNG media_image1.png 892 702 media_image1.png Greyscale Disney does not teach a plurality of dummy gates are located beside the gate, wherein the gate comprises a long side and a short side, the long side having a length greater than the short side, and an extending direction of the long side is defined as a longitudinal direction, wherein a length of the gate is longer than a length of the dummy gate in the longitudinal direction. However, Chern teaches a plurality of dummy gates (204D) are located beside the gate (204), wherein the gate (204) comprises a long side (the side along the Y – Longitudinal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern shared in this OA for convenience) and a short side (the side along the X – Horizontal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern), the long side (the side along the Y – Longitudinal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern) having a length greater than the short side (the side along the X – Horizontal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern), and an extending direction of the long side (the side along the Y – Longitudinal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern) is defined as a longitudinal direction (the Y – Longitudinal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern), wherein a length of the gate (204) is longer than a length of the dummy gate (204D) in the longitudinal direction (the Y – Longitudinal Direction – see annotated Fig (4B) of Chern). Disney and Chern are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney by introducing the dummy gates as disclosed in Chern to improve the outcomes of some of the etching processes on the gate structures leading to a more reliable device and a more efficient production process. PNG media_image2.png 659 912 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6; Disney in view of Chern teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Further, Disney teaches wherein a bottom surface of the horizontal portion (102a) is aligned with a bottom surface of the two sidewall portions (106). Regarding claim 7; Disney in view of Chern teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Further, Disney teaches wherein a bottom surface of the horizontal portion (102a) is aligned with a top surface of the substrate (100). Regarding claim 9; Disney in view of Chern teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Further, Disney teaches wherein the ratio of a height of the horizontal portion (102a) to a height of the sidewall portion (106) is between 0.7 and 0.95. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Disney, US 20030060001 A1 (Disney) in view of Chern et al, US 20160086949 A1 (Chern) in further view of Liu et al, US 20240128313 A1 (Liu) in further view of Liao et al, US 8803234 B1 (Liao) Regarding claim 2; Disney in view of Chern teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Disney in view of Chern does not teach further comprising a first spacer and a second spacer disposed on each sidewall portion. Liu teaches further comprising a first spacer ((1171) and (1172)) disposed on each sidewall portion ((1081’) and (1082’)). Disney in view of Chern and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney in view of Chern by introducing the spacers disposed on the sidewalls as disclosed in Liu to improve the isolation of the gate structure against current leakage. Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu teaches all the above disclosed subject matter. However, Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu does not teach a second spacer. Liao teaches a second spacer (114). Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu and Liao are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu by constructing a second spacer as disclosed in Liao to improve the insulation of the gate structure against undesired current leakage. PNG media_image3.png 649 960 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 657 845 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3; Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu in further view of Liao teaches all the limitations of claim 2. However, Disney in view of Chern and Liao do not teach wherein a bottom surface of the first spacer and a bottom surface of the second spacer are aligned with a top surface of the sidewall portion. Liu teaches wherein a bottom surface of the first spacer ((1171) and (1172)) are aligned with a top surface of the sidewall portion ((1081’) and (1082’)). Disney in view of Chern and Liao and Liu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney in view of Chern and Liao by introducing the spacers disposed on the sidewalls as disclosed in Liu to improve the isolation of the gate structure against current leakage. Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu teach all the above subject matter. However, Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu does not teach a second spacer. However, Liao teaches a second spacer (114). Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu and Liao are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu by constructing a second spacer as disclosed in Liao to improve the insulation of the gate structure against undesired current leakage. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Disney, US 20030060001 A1 (Disney) in view of Chern et al, US 20160086949 A1 (Chern) in further view of Liu et al, US 20240128313 A1 (Liu) in further view of Liao et al, US 8803234 B1 (Liao) in further view of Lin et al, US 20240047523 A1 (Lin) Regarding claim 4; Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu in further view of Liao teaches all the limitations of claim 3. However, Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu in further view of Liao does not teach further comprising a contact etching stop layer covering the second spacer and the substrate. Lin teaches further comprising a contact etching stop layer (170) covering the second spacer (150) and the substrate (114). Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu in further view of Liao and Lin are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the incident application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Disney in view of Chern in further view of Liu in further view of Liao by introducing the etch stop layer disclosed in Lin to enhance the protection of the structure of the transistor during the device construction process which leads to a more reliable device and more efficient production process. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00). 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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. /MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 28, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604572
THIN-FILM LED ARRAY WITH LOW REFRACTIVE INDEX PATTERNED STRUCTURES AND REFLECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593737
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588514
ELECTRONIC PART AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588332
DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING COLOR CONVERSION AND COLOR REINFORCEMENT PATTERNS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581783
LIGHT SOURCE MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
94%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (-6.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 53 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