Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/360,510

SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
ISAAC, STANETTA D
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
48%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
811 granted / 948 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -38% lift
Without
With
+-37.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 948 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/30/25 has been entered. 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) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US PGPub 2010/0289098, hereinafter referred to as “Li”). Li discloses the semiconductor method as claimed. See figures 1-10 and corresponding text, where Li teaches, in claim 21, a method of fabricating a semiconductor structure, comprising: providing a substrate (102) having a first metal layer with a first metal line in a memory region (108) and a second metal line coplanar with the first metal line and disposed in a logic region (110); (figure 1; [0022]) providing a memory element having a bottom electrode (302), a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) layer (304) and a top electrode (502) over the first metal line (202, 204); (figures 2 and 3; [0023-0025]) depositing a first dielectric material (602) surrounding the memory element; (figure 6; [0030]) depositing a second dielectric material (604) over the first dielectric material in the memory region and extending to the logic region; (figure 6; [0030-0031]) forming a first trench (704) in the second dielectric material and the first dielectric material exposing a surface of the top electrode (502) and forming a second trench (702) in the second dielectric material of the logic region, wherein the second trench is a dual damascene trench (702) having a via region (704, 706) and a metal line region; (figure 7; [0032-0033]) filling the first trench and the second trench with conductive material; (figure 7; [0032-0033]) and planarizing the conductive material (figure 7; [0032-0033]); wherein after the depositing the second dielectric material, an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material is lower in the logic region than an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material in the memory region (the examiner views that the thickness of the film will remain constant throughout such that the topography height, prior to planarization, would be greater in the memory region versus the logic region. For example, the second insulating layer 412 (Fig. 5) formed from planarizing the ILD layer (Fig. 4). Li teaches, in claim 22, wherein the depositing the first dielectric material includes depositing the first dielectric material extending to the logic region. (figure 6; [0030-0031]) Li teaches, in claim 23, wherein the depositing the first dielectric material extending to the logic region includes depositing the first dielectric material directly on a top surface of the second metal line. (figure 6; [0030-0031]) Li teaches, in claim 24, wherein after the depositing the second dielectric material and prior to forming the first trench and the second trench, an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material is lower in the logic region than in an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material in the memory region. (figure 7; [0032-0033]) Li teaches, in claim 25, wherein after the planarizing, an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material in the logic region is substantially coplanar with an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material in the memory region. (figure 7; [0032-0033]) Li teaches, in claim 26, wherein the planarizing the conductive material removes a portion of the second dielectric material (figures 6 and 7; [0030-0033]). Li teaches, in claim 27, wherein the depositing the first dielectric material includes depositing the first dielectric material on the surface of the top electrode and a top surface of the second metal line. (figure 6; [0030-0031]) REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE Claims 28-40 are allowed over the prior art of record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record and to the examiner’s knowledge does not suggest or render obvious a semiconductor structure, particularly characterized by the top electrode having a bottom surface engaging the MTJ, a top surface, a first sidewall extending from the bottom surface to the top surface, and a second sidewall extending from the bottom surface to the top surface and opposing the first sidewall; and a second portion of the (N+1)th metal layer over and engaging the top surface of the top electrode and an upper portion of the first sidewall and the second sidewall, N being a nonzero, positive integer; a third dielectric layer interfacing sidewalls of a bottom portion of the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the top electrode; the first dielectric layer interfacing sidewalls a middle portion of the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the top electrode, as detailed in claim 28. Claims 29-33 depends from claim 28. The closest prior art of record and to the examiner’s knowledge does not suggest or render obvious a semiconductor structure, particularly characterized by such that the first dielectric layer has a first circular edge defining the circular configuration of the first dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer has a second circular edge defining the circular configuration of the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer being disposed within the second circular edge of the third dielectric layer, as detailed in claim 34. Claims 35-40 depends from claim 40. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks applicant raises the clear issue as to whether that wherein after the depositing the second dielectric material, and uppermost surface of the second dielectric material is lower in the logic region than an uppermost surface of the second dielectric material in the memory. The examiner views that the thickness of the film will remain constant throughout such that the topography height, prior to planarization, would be greater in the memory region versus the logic region. For example, the second insulating layer 412 (Fig. 5) formed from planarizing the ILD layer (Fig. 4). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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. /STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 February 21, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
May 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Aug 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604706
APPARATUS INCLUDING TRANSPARENT MATERIAL FOR TRANSPARENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AND METHOD USING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604715
ISOLATION STRUCTURE AND MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593714
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING BONDING ENHANCEMENT LAYER AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593496
Multiple Threshold Voltage Implementation Through Lanthanum Incorporation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581981
Method of Forming an Interconnection between an Electric Component and an Electronic Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
86%
Grant Probability
48%
With Interview (-37.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 948 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