Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/469,924

HIGH DENSITY METAL-OXIDE-SEMICONDUCTOR (MOS) CAPACITOR (MOSCAP) AND METAL-OXIDE-METAL (MOM) CAPACITOR (MOMCAP) STACKING LAYOUT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner
LIU, MIKKA H
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 585 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 11/19/2025, the Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-10) in a reply filed on 01/08/2026. 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)). As such, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Currently, claims 1-10 are examined as below. Information Disclosure Statement Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 09/19/2023 and 01/29/2025. The IDS have been considered. 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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0024905 A1 to He et al. (“He”). PNG media_image1.png 310 507 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 308 505 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 594 523 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 600 539 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding independent claim 1, He in Figs. 1A-1E teaches an integrated circuit (IC) (Figs. 1A-1E, ¶ 24, ¶ 27, ¶ 32 & ¶ 34, integrated circuit includes MOS capacitor comprising substrate 100, gate conductor 200 and dielectric 300, and a metal interconnect capacitor comprising metal levels M1-M5), comprising: a metal-oxide-metal (MOM) capacitor (MOMCAP) M1-M5/304 (Figs. 1A-1E & ¶ 34, a collective of metal interconnect capacitor M1-M5 and dielectric 304 between the metal levels M1-M5), comprising: a first terminal 414 (Figs. 1B, 1D & ¶ 34, metal contact bus 414) coupled to a first plurality of fingers 415 (Figs. 1A-1D & ¶ 34, metal fingers 415) of a first metal interconnect layer M1 (Figs. 1A-1D & ¶ 34, metal level M1), and a second terminal 410 (Figs. 1B, 1D & ¶ 34, metal contact bus 410) coupled to a second plurality of fingers 411 (Figs. 1B, 1D & ¶ 34, metal fingers 411) of the first metal interconnect layer M1 and interdigitated with the first plurality of fingers 415 of the first metal interconnect layer (Fig. 1D & ¶ 35-¶ 36); and a first metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) capacitor (MOSCAP) 100/200/300 (Figs. 1A-1C & ¶ 27, a collective of substrate 100, gate conductor 200 and dielectric 300) comprising: a polysilicon terminal 200 (Figs. 1A-1C, ¶ 27 & ¶ 32, gate conductor 200 comprises polysilicon) coupled to the first plurality of fingers 415 of the MOMCAP M1-M5/304 (Figs. 1A-1D, ¶ 34, ¶ 42, polysilicon gate conductor 200 couples to the metal fingers 415 through the metal contact bus 414 and the vertical contacts 520), and a diffusion terminal 110 (Figs. 1A-1C & ¶ 42, n-doped region 110 of diffusion level) coupled to the second plurality of fingers 411 of the MOMCAP M1-M5/304 (Figs. 1B-1D & ¶ 42, diffusion terminal 110 couples to the metal fingers 411 through the metal contact bus 410 and the vertical contacts 500). Regarding claim 3, He in Figs. 1B-1D further teaches the diffusion terminal 110 is coupled to the second terminal 410 through a plurality of diffusion contacts 500 (Figs. 1B-1D & ¶ 42, vertical contacts 500 that connect to the diffusion terminal 110 make the contacts 500 diffusion contacts). Regarding claim 4, He in Figs. 1B-1D further teaches the diffusion terminal 110 is coupled to ends of the second plurality of fingers 411 (Figs. 1C-1D, the diffusion terminal 110 couples to ends of fingers 411 through vertical contacts 500 and metal contact bus 410), distal from the second terminal 410 through a plurality of diffusion contacts 500 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 42, the diffusion terminal 110 is distal from the terminal 410 through contacts 500). 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of US 11,121,072 B1 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”). Regarding claim 2, He in Figs. 1A-1D teaches outer ones of the first plurality of fingers 415 are coupled to the polysilicon terminal 200 through a plurality of contacts 520 (Fig. 1B & ¶ 42, vertical contacts 520). He further discloses the contacts 520 are vertical contacts (Fig. 1B & ¶ 42). However, He does not explicitly disclose the vertical contacts are polysilicon contacts. Zhu recognizes a need for providing an interconnect structure that electrically couples different components (col. 5, ln. 27-52). Zhu satisfies the need by providing vertical contacts 46, 48, 50 (Fig. 2 & col. 5, ln. 27-52, fingers 46, 48, 50) that are polysilicon contacts (col. 5, ln. 27-52). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use polysilicon taught by Zhu for the vertical contacts taught by He, so as to provide an interconnect structure that electrically couples different components (Zhu: col. 5, ln. 27-52). Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of US 2019/0386092 A1 to Cheng et al. (“Cheng”). Regarding claim 9, He does not explicitly disclose the IC of claim 1 integrated in a radio frequency (RF) front-end (RFFE) module. He further discloses the IC comprises the MOM capacitor M1-M5/304 and the MOS capacitor 100/200/300. Cheng recognizes a need for improving analog/radio frequency (RF) performance and supporting communication enhancements (¶ 2). Cheng satisfies the need by integrating high performance capacitor components including a MOM capacitor and a MOS capacitor to a radio frequency front end (RFFE) module (¶ 2-¶ 3 & ¶ 35-¶ 39). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the IC taught by He with the RFFE module taught by Cheng, so as to improve analog/radio frequency (RF) performance and support communication enhancements (Cheng: ¶ 2). Regarding claim 10, the combination of He and Cheng further teaches the RFFE module is integrated in a mobile phone, a set top box, a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a computer, a hand-held personal communication systems (PCS) unit, a portable data unit, and/or a fixed location data unit (Cheng: ¶ 107). Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim. Claim 5 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 5, a second MOSCAP coupled to the first MOSCAP; and a third MOSCAP coupled to the second MOSCAP. Claims 6-8 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0152379 A1 to Fujimoto et al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604575
DISPLAY MODULE WITH BETTER STRUCTURAL YIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593546
DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING SPACERS ON LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENTS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593735
COLOR OPTOELECTRONIC SOLID STATE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588383
DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568854
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGES HAVING SEMICONDUCTOR BLOCKS SURROUNDING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
92%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+3.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 585 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