Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/107,684

CRYSTALLINE OXIDE FILM, MULTILAYER STRUCTURE AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 09, 2023
Examiner
COLGAN, LAUREN ROBINSON
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
DENSO CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
633 granted / 905 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
951
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 905 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 and 14-16 in the reply filed on October 17, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 27, 2024, December 4, 2023 and February 9, 2023 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by Takahashi (USPub 20200211919). Regarding claim 1: Takahashi teaches a crystalline oxide film having a plane tilted from a c-plane as a principal plane (m-plane) (see Takahashi’s claim 6) comprising gallium which can further contain at least one additional metal selected from indium (Group 13), rhodium (Group 9) and iridium (Group 9) (0050, Takahashi claim 3). As Takahashi’s “at least one” teaching allows for the additional metal to be that of just the Group 13 indium metal instead of the listed Group 9 rhodium or iridium metals, Takahashi anticipates making their film comprise Group 9 metal in an amount of 0 atomic % falling within the claimed range. Alternatively, Takahashi teaching also allows for the additional metal to be one of Group 9 rhodium or iridium metals. Takahashi’s gallium is the major component with the atomic ratio of gallium to all other metals being 0.5 or more, 0.7 or more and even 0.8 or more (0050), and consequently, the rhodium or iridium will be contained at 50% or less, 30% or less and even 20% or less meeting the range of claim 1. Regarding claim 2: The film has a corundum structure (see Takahashi claim 6). Regarding claims 3 and 4: The film can have a m-plane as the principal plane (see Takahashi’s claim 6) which not only is known to be perpendicular to c-plane but note that is the same plane used by Applicants’ and it can be concluded to have the same relationship to the c-plane (MPEP 2112). Regarding claim 5: As discussed above, the additional metal can be Group 9 iridium. Regarding claim 6: Given that the film meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same features/functionality when exposed to the same conditions (MPEP 2112). Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, Takahashi anticipates making their film comprise Group 9 metal in an amount of 0 atomic % falling within the claimed range. Regarding claim 10: The film can have p-type conductivity (0051, see p-type dopants) but additionally, given that the film meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties (MPEP 2112). Regarding claim 11: Given that the film meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties (MPEP 2112). Regarding claim 14: Takahashi teaches semiconductor devices comprising the crystalline oxide film (see Takahashi’s claims 8-15) which can further include an electrode (0076). Regarding claim 15: The semiconductor can be a power device (Takahashi claim 10). Regarding claim 16: Takahashi also teaches a semiconductor system comprising the above-mentioned semiconductor device (Takahashi claim 15). 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. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (USPub 20200211919). Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches the invention of claim 1 and allows for the additional metal to be one of Group 9 rhodium or iridium metals. Takahashi’s gallium is the major component with the atomic ratio of gallium to all other metals being 0.5 or more, 0.7 or more and even 0.8 or more (0050), and consequently, the rhodium or iridium will be contained at 50% or less, 30% or less and even 20% overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (USPub 20200211919) in view of Hitora (USPub20150325659). Regarding claims 8 and 9: As discussed above, Takahashi teaches the invention of claim 1. While Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the thickness or roughness of their crystalline oxide film, given that Takahashi does not appear to place any limits on their thickness other than it can be adjusted with deposition time (see 0070) nor do they appear to place any limits on roughness at all, it would have been well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to find thicknesses and roughness deemed suitable/desirable in the art. In the instant case, Takahashi’s crystalline oxide film is a semiconductor film having a corundum structure, contains gallium as a major component and can be formed by mist CVD (0053). As Hitori, who similarly teaches semiconductor crystalline oxide films having a corundum structure, can contain gallium as a major component and be formed by mist CVD, discloses that desirable thicknesses for such films can be that of 0.1-100microns (0038) and desirable roughness of such films can be that of 0.1micron or less (see 0043-0044), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Takahashi to include making their film with 0.1-100micron (100-100000nm) thickness and 0.1micron or less (100nm or less) roughness (MPEP 2144.05) in obtaining a desirable semiconductor crystalline oxide film. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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. LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 1784 /LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600666
GLASS ARTICLE HAVING AN ANTI-REFLECTIVE COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600663
SUBSTRATE, LIQUID CRYSTAL ANTENNA AND HIGH-FREQUENCY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594744
INTERLAYER FILM FOR LAMINATED GLASS, AND LAMINATED GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591274
GLASS SUBSTRATE FOR FLEXIBLE DISPLAY AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585046
Heatable Windshield
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 905 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