Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/457,368

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
ENAD, CHRISTINE A
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rohm Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1105 granted / 1312 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
1380
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.5%
+21.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1312 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Publication No. 2023/0307517) in view of Haeberlen et al (US Publication No. 2021/0134968). Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor substrate Fig 1, 10 ¶0024; a transistor Fig 1, 100 formed on the semiconductor substrate Fig 1, 10 and including a source electrode Fig 1, 14, a drain electrode Fig 1, 18, and a gate electrode Fig 1, 36; a source pad Fig 1, 12 electrically connected to the source electrode Fig 1, 14; a drain pad Fig 1, 16 electrically connected to the drain electrode Fig 1, 18; a gate pad Fig 1, 34 connected to the gate electrode Fig 1, 36; a specified pad Fig 1, 20; and a capacitor Fig 6 ¶0046 including a source-side electrode Fig 6, electrically connected to the source electrode Fig 6, and a specified electrode ¶0031, electrically connected to the specified pad Fig 6, 20 and arranged facing the source-side electrode Fig 6. Watanabe discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the insulation layer relative to the source/drain pad. Whereas Haeberlen discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a transistor ¶0050 including a source electrode Fig 2, 26, a drain electrode Fig 2, 27, and a gate electrode Fig 2, 28; an insulation layer Fig 3D-3F, 43 arranged on the semiconductor substrate Fig 3D-3F; a source pad Fig 3D-3F, 34 ¶0064 formed on a head surface of the insulation layer Fig 3D-3F and electrically connected to the source electrode Fig 3A and Fig 3F; a drain pad Fig 3D-3F, 35 ¶0064 formed on the head surface of the insulation layer and electrically connected to the drain electrode Fig 3A and Fig 3E; a gate pad Fig 3D-3F, 36 ¶0065 formed on the head surface of the insulation layer and connected to the gate electrode Fig 3A and Fig 3F; a specified pad formed on the head surface of the insulation layer Fig 3A -Fig 3F; and a capacitor Fig 3A -Fig 3F, 40 including a source-side electrode Fig 3A -Fig 3F, electrically connected to the source electrode Fig 3A -Fig 3F. Watanabe and Haeberlen are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Watanabe because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Watanabe and incorporate the teachings of Haeberlen to improve device isolation. Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Haeberlen discloses wherein: the specified electrode ¶0031 includes an opposing portion facing the source pad with part of the insulation layer located in between Fig 1 ¶0046-0047, 0059, 0061; and the source side electrode includes an opposed portion formed by the source pad where the source pad faces the opposing portion Fig 1. Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Haeberlen discloses wherein: the specified electrode further includes a connecting portion electrically connecting the opposing portion and the specified pad; and the specified electrode extends across both of the source pad and the specified pad in a view taken in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate ¶0031 and 0071 Fig 1. Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Haeberlen discloses a via extending through the insulation layer between the connecting portion and the specified pad and electrically connecting the connecting portion and the specified pad Fig 3 ¶0057-0059. Claims 5-6, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Publication No. 2023/0307517) in view of Haeberlen et al (US Publication No. 2021/0134968) and Noebauer et al (US Publication No. 2021/0351168). Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the electrodes. Whereas Noebauer discloses wherein the opposing portion is formed on a back surface of the insulation layer Fig 2, Fig 5B-5C, Fig 6B, Fig 7B. Watanabe and Noebauer are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Watanabe because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Watanabe and incorporate the teachings of Noebauer to improve device connectivity. Regarding claim 6, Noebauer discloses wherein the opposing portion is an embedded conductive layer embedded in the insulation layer Fig 2, Fig 5B-5C, Fig 6B, Fig 7B. Regarding claim 13, Noebauer discloses wherein the specified pad is located closer to the source pad than the gate pad on the head surface of the insulation layer Fig 2, Fig 3B and Fig 4C. Regarding claim 14, Noebauer discloses wherein the gate pad is located closer to the drain pad than the source pad on the head surface of the insulation layer ¶0072 Fig 4D. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Publication No. 2023/0307517) in view of Haeberlen et al (US Publication No. 2021/0134968) and Yamada (US Publication No. 2023/0170409). Regarding claim 16, Watanabe discloses all the limitations but silent on the encapsulation resin. Whereas Yamada discloses an encapsulation resin Fig 14, 1231 encapsulating the semiconductor device ¶0076 Fig 14. Watanabe and Yamada are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Watanabe because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Watanabe and incorporate the teachings of Yamada to improve device isolation. Regarding claim 17, Yamada discloses a specified wire connecting the specified pad and the gate pad Fig 14. Regarding claim 18, Yamada discloses wherein the specified pad is electrically disconnected from the gate pad Fig 14. Regarding claim 19, Yamada discloses a source lead, a drain lead, and a gate lead; a source wire connecting the source lead and the source pad; a drain wire connecting the drain lead and the drain pad; and a gate wire connecting the gate lead and the gate pad Fig 14. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-12, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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. /CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604723
Metal Capping Layer for Reducing Gate Resistance in Semiconductor Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593498
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND FORMING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588244
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF FABRICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588270
METHOD OF FORMING MULTIPLE-VT FETS FOR CMOS CIRCUIT APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581923
METHOD FOR REMOVING EDGE OF SUBSTRATE IN SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1312 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