Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/345,186

OPEN CAVITY SENSOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 30, 2023
Examiner
MELLINGER, CORBYN DAVID
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
15 granted / 22 resolved
At TC average
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+43.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
54
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 22 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 & 22 in the reply filed on 05 November 2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 8-9 are 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. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower and upper portions of the metal member" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hollow cavity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting “the hollow cavity” to be referring to “the cavity” recited in claim 6. 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) 1-4, 6, 10, 13-14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230307303 (Kishigui et al). As to Claim 1, Kishigui teaches a semiconductor package (Kishigui Fig 2), comprising: a semiconductor die including a device side having circuitry formed therein, the device side including a sensor (30 having detector assembly 40 on the top side thereof); a metal member creating a hollow cavity extending through the metal member (60 defines hollow cavity), the hollow cavity vertically aligned with the sensor (opening aligned with 40), the metal member including a lower portion having a first wall thickness (61, first wall thickness measured along the horizontal direction in Fig 2) and an upper portion having varying wall thicknesses greater than and less than the first wall thickness (62, wherein the wall thicknesses are measured at a 45 degree angle between the horizontal and vertical axes in Fig 2), an intersection of the upper and lower portions forming a notch on an outer side of the metal member opposing the hollow cavity (notch formed at joining of 61/62); and a mold compound covering portions of the semiconductor die and contacting the metal member (50). As to Claim 2, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 1, wherein the wall thicknesses of the upper portion decrease from a bottom of the upper portion to a top of the upper portion (measurement of thicknesses described in claim 1 rejection satisfy this limitation). As to Claim 3, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 1, wherein the hollow cavity has a uniform diameter (diameter in horizontal direction defined by 60 uniform). As to Claim 4, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 1, wherein the hollow cavity has a cylindrical shape (opening defined by 60 cylindrical; see Fig 1). As to Claim 6, Kishigui teaches a semiconductor package (Fig 2), comprising: a semiconductor die having a sensor (30 with sensor 40); a mold compound covering the semiconductor die (50 covering 30), the mold compound having a cavity extending through an entire thickness of the mold compound and vertically aligned with the sensor (cavity 53 extending down to sensor 40), the cavity including a lower portion having a first wall thickness (labeled in annotated Kishigui Fig 2) and an upper portion having a second wall thickness larger than the first wall thickness (see annotated Kishigui Fig 2); and a metal member lining a wall of the cavity, the cavity having a uniform inner diameter (60 lines outer wall of cavity 53, 53 having uniform inner diameter), wherein the second wall thickness tapers from a point most proximal to the semiconductor die to a point most distal to the semiconductor die (second wall thickness tapers along indicated direction shown in annotated Kishigui Fig 2). PNG media_image1.png 1084 1291 media_image1.png Greyscale As to Claim 10, Kishigui teaches a semiconductor package (Fig 2), comprising: a semiconductor die having a sensor (30 having sensor 40); PNG media_image2.png 1084 1291 media_image2.png Greyscale a metal member having a hollow cavity extending through the metal member and vertically aligned with the sensor (cavity defined through 60 and aligned with 40), the metal member including a lower portion having a uniform wall thickness (61, wall thickness measured along horizontal direction in Fig 2) and an upper portion having opposing first and second ends (62, first/second ends labeled in specifically-labeled annotated Kishigui Fig 2), the first end closest to the lower portion and the second end farthest from the lower portion (see appropriate annotated Fig 2), a wall thickness of the upper portion tapering from the first end to the second end (first/second ends taper as claimed); and a mold compound contacting an outer surface of the metal member and covering the semiconductor die (50 contacts surface 60A and covers 30). As to Claim 13, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 10, further comprising conductive terminals exposed to an exterior of the mold compound and coupled to a device side of the semiconductor die on which the sensor is positioned (20 includes external connections on surface 20C being electrically connected top side of 30 ¶0046). As to Claim 14, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 10, wherein a lower surface of the upper portion extends farther away from the hollow cavity than the lower portion extends away from the hollow cavity (indicated corner on appropriate annotated Fig 2 further away from cavity than portion 61A of 61 does), and wherein the lower surface of the upper portion mitigates risk of the mold compound separating from the semiconductor die (notch prevents the O-ring OR from sliding, improving stability of device and thereby mitigating risk of mold compound separating). As to Claim 22, Kishigui teaches a semiconductor package (Fig 2), comprising: a semiconductor die including a sensor on a device side of the semiconductor die, the sensor exposed to an ambient environment of the package (30 having sensor 40 on top side, with 40 exposed through the openings); a metal wall (60) having inner and outer surfaces, the inner surface surrounding and facing the sensor and the outer surface facing away from the sensor (61B/61A facing towards and away from the sensor, respectively), the metal wall having a lower portion with a uniform wall thickness (63 has uniform horizontal thickness) and an upper portion with varying wall thicknesses that increase from top to bottom (61+62 have thicknesses increasing in the direction from the top-outer corner of 62 towards the opening at an angle of 45 degrees below the horizontal); and a mold compound contacting the outer surface and covering at least part of the semiconductor die (50). 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) 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishigui as applied to claims 1, 6, and 10 above, and further in view of CN 210894101 (Tao et al). For convenience the examiner references a machine translation of Tao by Espacenet provided in this office action. As to Claim 5, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the hollow cavity ranges from 100 microns to 150 microns. Tao discloses a device which is similar to that of Kishigui, in that it describes a housing for a sensor similar to Kishigui. Specifically, Tao discloses the diameter for a gas sensing chamber being 100-2000 µm (Tao ¶0048). It would have been obvious, in light of Tao teaching the scale of analogous sensors known to those in the art at the time of filing, that a diameter of the hollow cavity disclosed by Kishigui can range from 100 microns to 150 microns. As to Claim 7, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 6 but fails to explicitly teach wherein a horizontal thickness of the upper portion is at least 40 microns. Tao, for the same reasons as those applied to the claim 5 rejection above, renders obvious that a horizontal thickness of the upper portion disclosed by Kishigui can be at least 40 microns. As to Claim 8, the combination of Kishigui and Tao teaches the package of claim 7. Kishigui further teaches the lower and upper portions of the metal member intersect as a notch (notch at boundary on annotated Fig 2) and where the notch mitigates risk of the mold compound detaching from the semiconductor die (notch increases contact between mold compound and die, decreasing risk of detaching). As to Claim 9, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 6, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the hollow cavity ranges from 100 microns to 150 microns. Tao, for the same reasons as those applied to the claim 5 rejection above, renders obvious that a diameter of the hollow cavity disclosed by Kishigui can range from 100 microns to 150 microns. As to Claim 11, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 10, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the hollow cavity ranges from 100 microns to 150 microns. Tao, for the same reasons as those applied to the claim 5 rejection above, renders obvious that a diameter of the hollow cavity disclosed by Kishigui can range from 100 microns to 150 microns. As to Claim 12, the combination of Kishigui and Tao teaches the package of claim 11. Kishigui further teaches wherein the diameter of the hollow cavity does not vary along a length of the hollow cavity (diameter of 64 along 61 does not vary). As to Claim 15, Kishigui teaches the package of claim 10, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a horizontal thickness of the upper portion is at least 40 microns. Tao, for the same reasons as those applied to the claim 5 rejection above, renders obvious that a horizontal thickness of the upper portion disclosed by Kishigui can be at least 40 microns. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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. /Corbyn D Mellinger/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604760
SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588490
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE COMPRISING POWER DELIVER NETWORK STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581884
METHODS FOR OXIDIZING A SILICON HARDMASK USING ION IMPLANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575403
INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12550782
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+43.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 22 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