Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/124,768

SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND FORMING METHOD THEREFOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Examiner
KEAGY, ROSE ALYSSA
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Beijing) Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allow Rate
24 granted / 25 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
49
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 25 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Amended Claim 1 recites “the first gap being laterally bounded by the dielectric layer and the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug and the dielectric layer being isolated from the gate structure by the dielectric layer”. This added wording may be interpreted as wherein “the first gap being laterally bounded by the dielectric layer and the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug”; and wherein “the dielectric layer being isolated from the gate structure by the dielectric layer”. Or, it may be interpreted as wherein “the first gap being laterally bounded by the dielectric layer”; and wherein “the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug and the dielectric layer” is “being isolated from the gate structure by the dielectric layer”. Alternatively, it may be interpreted as wherein “the first gap being laterally bounded by the dielectric layer”; and wherein “the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug” and “the dielectric layer” are both “being isolated from the gate structure by the dielectric layer”. It may even be interpreted as “the first gap being laterally bounded by the dielectric layer and the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug” plus “the dielectric layer” are both “being isolated from the gate structure by the dielectric layer”. Therefore, the scope and interpretation of Claim 1 is unclear. An example of wording that would likely be allowable is: “, the first gap is ; wherein the first gap located between the side wall of the source/drain plug and the dielectric layer is Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5 include all of the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, they are unclear for the same reasons as described supra because they do not correct that ambiguity. Allowable Subject Matter No prior art rejection is applied to Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 1 would likely be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), described supra in this Office action. Claims 2-5 are likely allowable for depending on Claim 1. Response to Arguments In the amendments and arguments filed 2/26/2026, the Applicant states (page 9) that amended independent Claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Cheng and Tang. The amendments to Claim 1 has necessitated an updated rejection of Claim 1. Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described supra in this Office action. Dependent Claims 2-5 are rejected because they include all of the limitations of Claim 1. Further, claims 6-20 remain pending, but are withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention (see Applicant’s response with a mail date of November 17, 2025), these claims should be canceled in the following amendment to expedite allowance upon the correction of claim 1 above. 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 Rose Keagy whose telephone number is (571) 270-3455. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm (CT). 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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. /R.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2818 /JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604510
CONTACT JUMPER FOR NON-SELF ALIGNED CONTACT DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604521
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598980
FRONT END OF LINE PROCESSING COMPATIBLE THERMALLY STABLE BURIED POWER RAILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599041
COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593525
OFFSET VERTICAL INTERCONNECT AND COMPRESSION POST FOR 3D-INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL DEVICE
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
96%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+7.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 25 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