Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/486,528

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Examiner
ERDEM, FAZLI
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toshiba Electronic Devices & Storage Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
895 granted / 1050 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1082
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1050 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/463,138 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Regarding Claim 1, both the instant claim 1 and claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 of ‘138 recite semiconductor device, comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode separated from the first electrode; a first region located on a portion of the first electrode and positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first region including a first semiconductor region of a first conductivity type, a second semiconductor region of a second conductivity type, a portion of the second semiconductor region being located on the first semiconductor region, a plurality of third semiconductor regions located on the portion of the second semiconductor region, the plurality of third semiconductor regions being of the first conductivity type, a gate electrode facing one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions via a gate insulating layer in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the first direction being from the first electrode toward the second electrode, a conductive part facing an other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions via an insulating layer in the second direction, the conductive part being electrically connected with the second electrode, a fourth semiconductor region located on the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the fourth semiconductor region being of the second conductivity type, a fifth semiconductor region located on the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the fifth semiconductor region being of the first conductivity type, a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the fifth semiconductor region being greater than a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, and a sixth semiconductor region located on the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the sixth semiconductor region being of the second conductivity type, a length of the sixth semiconductor region in a third direction being greater than a length of the fourth semiconductor region in the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first and second directions; and a second region located on another portion of the first electrode and positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, the second region including a seventh semiconductor region of the second conductivity type, the seventh semiconductor region having a higher second-conductivity-type impurity concentration than the second semiconductor region, another portion of the second semiconductor region located on the seventh semiconductor region, and an eighth semiconductor region located on the other portion of the second semiconductor region, the eighth semiconductor region being of the first conductivity type. Regarding Claim 2, both the instant claim 2, and claims 1 and 3 of ‘138 recite, the fourth semiconductor region and the fifth semiconductor region are alternately arranged in the third direction. Regarding Claim 3, both the instant claim 3 and claims 1-5 of ‘138 recite, the fifth semiconductor regions are provided respectively on the plurality of third semiconductor regions, and a length in the second direction of the fifth semiconductor region positioned on the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions is less than a length in the second direction of another of the fifth semiconductor regions positioned on the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions. Regarding Claim 4, both the instant claim 4 and claims 1-5 of ‘138 recite, a plurality of the fifth semiconductor regions is arranged in the third direction on the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, and the sixth semiconductor region is located around the plurality of fifth semiconductor regions along a first plane perpendicular to the first direction. Regarding Claim 5, both the instant claim 5 and claims 1-5 and 7 of ‘138 recite, wherein the first region includes: a first part in which the gate electrode, the fifth semiconductor region, the fourth semiconductor region, and the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions are located; and a second part in which the conductive part, the sixth semiconductor region, and the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions are located, and the second part is positioned between the first part and the second region. Regarding Claim 6, both the instant claim 6 and claims 1-6 of ‘138 recite, a length in the second direction of the second part is greater than a distance in the first direction between the first electrode and the second electrode. Regarding Claim 7, both the instant claim 7 and claims 8 and 11 of ‘138 recite a semiconductor device, comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode separated from the first electrode; a first region located on a portion of the first electrode and positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first region including a first semiconductor region of a first conductivity type, a second semiconductor region of a second conductivity type, a portion of the second semiconductor region being located on the first semiconductor region, a plurality of third semiconductor regions located on the portion of the second semiconductor region, the plurality of third semiconductor regions being of the first conductivity type, a gate electrode facing one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions via a gate insulating layer in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the first direction being from the first electrode toward the second electrode, a conductive part facing another one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions via an insulating layer in the second direction, the conductive part being electrically connected with the second electrode, a fourth semiconductor region located on the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the fourth semiconductor region being of the second conductivity type, a fifth semiconductor region located on the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the fifth semiconductor region being of the first conductivity type, a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the fifth semiconductor region being greater than a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, and a sixth semiconductor region located on the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, the sixth semiconductor region being of the first conductivity type, a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the sixth semiconductor region being greater than a first-conductivity-type impurity concentration of the other one of the plurality of third semiconductor regions, an area of the sixth semiconductor region per unit area being greater than an area of the fifth semiconductor region per unit area at a first plane perpendicular to the first direction; and a second region located on another portion of the first electrode and positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, the second region including a seventh semiconductor region of the second conductivity type, the seventh semiconductor region having a higher second-conductivity-type impurity concentration than the second semiconductor region, another portion of the second semiconductor region located on the seventh semiconductor region, and an eighth semiconductor region located on the other portion of the second semiconductor region, the eighth semiconductor region being of the first conductivity type. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAZLI ERDEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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. /FAZLI ERDEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 1/7/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593563
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593631
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588498
FINFET STRUCTURE WITH CONTROLLED AIR GAPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581679
SPLIT-GATE POWER MOS DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581877
SELECTIVE DEPOSITION OF METAL OXIDES USING SILANES AS AN INHIBITOR
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
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+7.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1050 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month