Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/198,549

SEMICONDUCTOR FABRICATION PROCESS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 17, 2023
Examiner
BOOTH, RICHARD A
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
X-Fab France SAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
878 granted / 1029 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1064
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
56.2%
+16.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 09/11/25 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanfilippo et al., US Patent 6,331,470. Sanfilippo et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method of making a semiconductor structure, the method comprising: Providing a silicon-on-insulator substrate 30 comprising a first epitaxial layer 31 and a bulk silicon substrate 3 separated by a buried oxide layer 4; Performing a local oxidation of silicon process in a region 32 of said silicon on insulator substrate to at least partially oxidize said first epitaxial silicon layer in said region (see, for example, figs. 1b, fig. 2a, and col. 4-lines 14-18); Locally etching the silicon on insulator substrate in said region to create a trench 37 through said buried oxide layer and to said bulk silicon substrate (see, for example, fig. 2d and col. 4-lines 14-24); Forming a second epitaxial layer 110b on aid bulk silicon substrate in said trench (see fig. 2f and col. 4-lines 42-46); and Forming one or more semiconductor devices in said first and second epitaxial layer to form circuitry region 26 and a power portion 17 (see figs. 1a-2f, 3, and col. 2-line 41 to col. 5-line 15). With respect to dependent claim 3, note that in Sanfilippo et al. said step of forming one or more semiconductor devices comprises forming a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) in said second epitaxial layer (see col. 4-lines 42-46 and col. 5-lines 1-15). Concerning dependent claim 4, note that in Sanfilippo et al. discloses wherein said step of forming one or more semiconductor devices comprises forming one or more CMOS devices in said first epitaxial layer located over said buried oxide layer (see col. 5-lines 1-16). With respect to dependent claim 5, Sanfilippo et al. discloses performing a second local oxidation 36 of silicon process to fully oxidize said first epitaxial layer in said region (see fig. 2a-2c and col. 4-lines 14-18). Concerning dependent claim 6, the process of Sanfilippo et al. discloses wherein each local oxidation of silicon process comprises the following steps: depositing a nitride hard mask layer 6 on said substrate; depositing an oxide layer 5 on said substrate; depositing a photoresist 7 on the substrate, and patterning said photoresist to define said region 8 (see fig. 1a and its description). Regarding dependent claim 7, note that the process of Sanfilippo et al. discloses wherein said local oxidation of silicon process partially oxidizes said first epitaxial layer in said region and thereby forms an oxide layer (32, see fig. 2a) on said first epitaxial layer in said region, the method further comprising etching said region to remove said oxide layer on said first epitaxial layer to expose said first epitaxial layer in said region 35 (see fig. 2b). Concerning dependent claim 11, note that in Sanfilippo et al. the step of forming a second epitaxial layer 110b comprises forming said second epitaxial layer to have a thickness greater than a combined thickness of said buried oxide layer and said first epitaxial layer (see, for example, fig. 2f). As to dependent claim 12, Sanfilippo et al. discloses further comprising, after forming said epitaxial layer, performing CMP to level an upper surface of said epitaxial layer (see fig. 2f and col. 4-lines 42-46). With respect to dependent claim 14, Sanfilippo et al. discloses wherein said step of forming one or more semiconductor devices comprises selectively doping said first and second epitaxial layers (see fig. 3 and col. 5-lines 1-16). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo et al., US Patent 6,331,470 in view of Liao et al., U.S. Patent 8,716,750. Sanfilippo et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose forming a SiGe device in said second epitaxial layer. Liao et al. discloses forming an FET in a SiGe epitaxial layer (see. for example, col. 1-lines 10-25). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Sanfilippo et al. so as to utilize SiGe for the second epitaxial layer because it creates a stress in the device region which improves the mobility of the device. Claim(s) 8-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo et al., US Patent 6,331,470. Sanfilippo et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the claimed post LOCOS processing steps. However, Sanfilippo et al. discloses forming a trench in layers after LOCOS processing (see figs. 2c-2f). Furthermore, official notice is taken that the claimed steps are prima facie steps in the art in order to form trench regions of fine dimensions with minimal contamination and would not lend patentability to the instant application. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanfilippo et al., US Patent 6,331,470 in view of Pradhan et al., U.S. Patent 9,112,057. Sanfilippo et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose providing shallow trench isolation to provide lateral isolation at least between said first and second epitaxial layers. Pradhan et al. discloses forming shallow trench isolation regions (STI) between epitaxial regions formed from layer 304 (see, for example, fig. 2D and its description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Sanfilippo et al. so as to separate the epitaxial regions using shallow trench isolation because this is shown by Pradhan et al. to be an effective structure that can be used to isolate devices between different regions. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al., US 2016/0225768 discloses the formation of different devices in different epitaxial region materials (see abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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. /RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 November 16, 202554
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598993
THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTEGRATED CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593445
Control Gate Structures in Three-Dimensional Memory Devices and Methods for Forming the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593443
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593664
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593454
FERROELECTRIC TUNNEL JUNCTION STRUCTURE WITH L-SHAPED SPACERS
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 (+8.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 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