Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/493,791

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 24, 2023
Examiner
LI, MEIYA
Art Unit
2811
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nanya Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
628 granted / 912 resolved
+0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
964
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 912 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/23, 12/10/23, 3/22/24, 10/9/24 and 4/1/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There appears to be no adequate description in the specification for the claim limitation of "the second dopant has a smaller atomic radius than the semiconductive material", as recited in claim 3 (note: the specification discloses “carbon”, “phosphor” (narrow terms/limitations when compared with claimed limitation of “second dopant”); and “silicon” (narrow term/limitation when compared with claimed limitation of “semiconductive material”)). The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claimed limitation of "a portion of the substrate", as recited in claim 1, line 11, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a portion of the substrate", as recited in claim 1, line 3. The term "atomic radius" in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "atomic radius" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claimed limitation of "the second dopant has a smaller atomic radius than the semiconductive material", as recited in claim 3, is unclear as to atomic radius of which specific semiconductive material is being used as the reference for comparison since different semiconductive materials have different atomic radii. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “forming a second photoresist layer over the substrate, wherein the second photoresist layer partially covers the implant region”, as recited in claim 1. Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ref's A-C are cited as being related to a method of forming a semiconductor device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM. 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. /MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598744
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575120
DEPOSITING A STORAGE NODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12520484
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12520731
MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506077
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
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
69%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+26.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 912 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