Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/379,667

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Priority
Sep 20, 2023 — TW 112135883
Examiner
ESKRIDGE, CORY W
Art Unit
3624
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
452 granted / 623 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
644
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
71.5%
+31.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 623 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 Invention II in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 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)). Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026. 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. Claims 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2019/0371898). Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches (FIG. 7A, 7B): A semiconductor device, comprising: a metal gate (226) on a substrate; a contact etch stop layer (296) (CESL) adjacent to the metal gate; an interlayer dielectric (297) (ILD) layer around the CESL; and a first contact plug (236) in the ILD layer, wherein a width of the first contact plug adjacent to the CESL is less than a width of the first contact plug under the CESL (FIG. 1A, 7B). Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches (FIG. 7A, 7B): The semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein a width of the first contact plug adjacent to the CESL is less than a width of the first contact plug above the CESL. Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches (FIG. 7A, 7B): The semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein a sidewall of the first contact plug comprises a non-planar surface. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2019/0371898) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Huang2 (US 2020/0343135). Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches undercut source/drain contact regions, but is silent regarding the gate contact: The semiconductor device of claim 9, further comprising: a first hard mask on the metal gate, wherein top surfaces of the first hard mask and the ILD layer are coplanar; a second hard mask on the first hard mask; and a second contact plug on the metal gate. However, Huang 2 (FIG. 13) teaches a metal gate structure having an undercut contact (96) along with undercut source/drain contacts (94), the gate having a hard mask (82) coplanar with ILD (60) and a second hard mask (90). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the undercut gate contact structure of Huang2 with the undercut source/drain structure of Huang for the predictable advantage of improving the uniformity of contact performance. Regarding claim 13, Huang2 teaches (FIG. 13): The semiconductor device of claim 12, wherein the second contact plug between the first hard mask comprises: a first width closer to the metal gate; and a second width closer to the second hard mask. Regarding claim 14, Huang2 teaches (FIG. 13): The semiconductor device of claim 13, wherein the second width is less than the first width. Regarding claim 15, Huang2 teaches (FIG. 13): The semiconductor device of claim 12, wherein a sidewall of the second contact plug comprises a non-planar surface. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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. /CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12642078
POWER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
3y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12642151
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 12m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12642114
ELECTRONIC PACKAGE AND CIRCUIT STRUCTURE THEREOF
2y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628670
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) INTERCONNECT CONFIGURATION FOR SUBSTRATE AND SURFACE MOUNT DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12628682
BONDING SYSTEMS FOR BONDING A SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT TO A SUBSTRATE, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 623 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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