Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/062,827

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 07, 2022
Examiner
HOQUE, MOHAMMAD M
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Renesas Electronics Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
610 granted / 719 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
753
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 719 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (semiconductor device), species PROD_A, reflected in claims 1-3, 8-9 and 11-14 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-7, 10 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being drawn to the nonelected group. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. 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. Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKANISHI (US 20190097002 A1, hereinafter Nakanishi‘002) in view of D'Arrigo et al. (US 5168335 A). Regarding independent claim 1, Nakanishi‘002 teaches, “A semiconductor device (fig. 1-30; ¶ [0057] - ¶ [0146]) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (SB, fig. 5) having a main surface (top surface) and a back surface (bottom surface) located on opposite sides to each other; a field plate portion (FP) formed on the main surface of the semiconductor substrate (SB) via a first insulating film (FiF, TiF); a second insulating film (iF) formed on the main surface of the semiconductor substrate (SB) so as to cover the first insulating film (FiF, TiF) and the field plate portion (FP); a first metal pattern (FCW) and a second metal pattern (SCW) formed on the second insulating film (iF); and an insulating protective film (PF, MB) formed on the second insulating film (iF) so as to cover the first metal pattern (FCW) and the second metal pattern (SCW), wherein each of the first metal pattern (FCW) and the second metal pattern (SCW) is electrically connected to the field plate portion (FP), wherein each of the first metal pattern (FCW) and the second metal pattern (SCW) is thicker than the field plate portion (FP), wherein the field plate portion (FP) is made of polycrystalline silicon (¶ [0083]), and ((wherein the second insulating film is composed of a stacked film of one or more silicon nitride films and one or more silicon oxide films))”. PNG media_image1.png 516 724 media_image1.png Greyscale But Nakanishi‘002 is silent upon the provision of wherein the second insulating film is composed of a stacked film of one or more silicon nitride films and one or more silicon oxide films. However, D'Arrigo et al. teach a semiconductor device (fig. 7) wherein an insulating film (44, ONO layer) is composed of a stacked film of one or more silicon nitride films and one or more silicon oxide films and cover poly silicon field plate (48). PNG media_image2.png 371 1114 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Nakanishi‘002 and D'Arrigo et al.to use ONO layer as an insulating film to cover field plates according to the teachings of D'Arrigo et al. to exploit the advantages of ONO film stack as insulating layer e.g., fewer pinhole defects than single layers, better performance as devices shrink, supporting CMOS scaling, excellent dielectric properties etc. Regarding claim 2, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the second insulating film (44, ONO layer, fig. 7, D'Arrigo et al.) is composed of a stacked film of a first silicon oxide film, a first silicon nitride film on the first silicon oxide film, and a second silicon oxide film on the first silicon nitride film”. Regarding claim 3, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the first silicon oxide film (bottom layer of ONO stack which replaces layer iF in fig. 5 of Nakanishi‘002) is in contact with the field plate portion (FP, fig. 5 of Nakanishi‘002)”. Regarding claim 8, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the protective film (PF, fig. 5, Nakanishi‘002) is in contact with the first metal pattern (FCW) and the second metal pattern (SCW), and wherein the protective film (PF) does not include a silicon nitride film (¶ [0075])”. Regarding claim 9, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 8, wherein the protective film (PF, MB, fig. 5, Nakanishi‘002) is a film in an uppermost layer”. Regarding claim 11, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein an element region (DR, fig. 2, Nakanishi‘002) in which a semiconductor element is formed is arranged in a central part of the main surface of the semiconductor substrate (SB), wherein the first metal pattern (FCW, fig. 1) is arranged so as to surround the element region (DR) in plan view and is electrically connected to a first portion of the semiconductor substrate (left upper corner of SB in fig. 5) exposed from the second insulating film (iF), wherein the second metal pattern (SCW, fig. 1) is arranged so as to surround the first metal pattern (FCW) in plan view and is electrically connected to a second portion of the semiconductor substrate (right upper corner of SB in fig. 5) exposed from the second insulating film (iF), wherein the field plate portion (FP, fig. 4) integrally includes a first conductor pattern (FCP) arranged so as to surround the element region (DR) in plan view, a second conductor pattern (SCP) arranged so as to surround the first conductor pattern (FCP) in plan view, and a third conductor pattern (TCP) arranged between the first conductor pattern (FCP) and the second conductor pattern (SCP) in plan view and connecting the first conductor pattern (FCP) and the second conductor pattern (SCP), wherein the first metal pattern (FCW, fig. 5) is electrically connected to the first conductor pattern (FCP) of the field plate portion (FP), and wherein the second metal pattern (SCW, fig. 5) is electrically connected to the second conductor pattern of the field plate portion (FP)”. Regarding claim 12, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 11, wherein a first electrode (EE/MCF, BCF, fig. 5; ¶ [0073], Nakanishi‘002) for the semiconductor element is formed on the second insulating film (iF) on the element region, wherein a second electrode (CE) for the semiconductor element is formed on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (SB), and wherein the protective film (PF, MB) covers a part of the first electrode (EE)”. Regarding claim 13, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. further teaches, “The semiconductor device according to claim 12, wherein the first metal pattern (FCW, fig. 5, Nakanishi‘002) is electrically connected to the first electrode (EE), and wherein the second metal pattern (SCW) is electrically connected to the second electrode (EE) through the semiconductor substrate (SB)”. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi‘002) and D'Arrigo et al. as applied to claim 11 as above, and further in view of Shirai; Koji et al. (US 4707720 A, hereinafter Shirai‘720). Regarding claim 14, Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. teaches all the limitations described in claim 11. But Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. is silent upon the provision of wherein a plurality of p-type semiconductor regions and n-type semiconductor regions are alternately arranged in the third conductor pattern along an extending direction of the third conductor pattern. However, Shirai‘720 teaches a filed plate (20, fig. 11-12; column 9 lines 3-20) comprising a plurality of p-type semiconductor regions (‘P portion’) and n-type semiconductor regions (‘N portion’) alternately arranged in the third conductor pattern (‘field plate electrode 20’) along an extending direction of the third conductor pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Nakanishi‘002 modified with D'Arrigo et al. and Shirai‘720 to form the field plates including alternate p-type semiconductor regions and n-type semiconductor regions according to the teachings of Shirai‘720 with a motivation of achieving high breakdown voltage by avoiding sharp variation of the depletion layer in the field plates. See Shirai‘720, column 9 lines 3-20 for details. Examiner’s Note Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST. 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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. /MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604747
OPOSSUM REDISTRIBUTION FRAME FOR CONFIGURABLE MEMORY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604491
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604624
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598781
SEMICONDUCTOR SWITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593479
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING AN EDGE TERMINATION STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 719 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