Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/495,519

SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
HALL, VICTORIA KATHLEEN
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
678 granted / 811 resolved
+15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
846
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 811 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: VCT. See applicants’ specification, page 4, paragraph 24, line 29 of the page: PNG media_image1.png 54 635 media_image1.png Greyscale Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 31 in Figure 44. PNG media_image2.png 616 577 media_image2.png Greyscale Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: In Figure 24, landing pad LP and data storage pattern DSP are supposed to be misaligned, per applicants’ specification, page 25, paragraph 172, but they are shown as aligned in plan view in this figure. PNG media_image3.png 639 631 media_image3.png Greyscale In the interest of clarity, add the directions from Figure 2 to Figure 4. PNG media_image4.png 714 978 media_image4.png Greyscale In the specification, page 16, paragraph 109, the specification indicates that the height of the back gate electrode BG to the shielding conductive line SL is greater than the height from the back gate electrode BG to the metal pattern 163. However, Figures 2 and 3 show that the height of the back gate electrode BG to the shielding conductive line SL is less than the height from the back gate electrode BG to the metal pattern 163. See annotated Figures 2, 3, on the next page. It could be that there was a mistranslation of this sentence. PNG media_image5.png 713 1125 media_image5.png Greyscale Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 16, paragraph 109, last sentence: Per the discussion in the Drawing Objections section, check the last sentence for a mistranslation error. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, lines 2, 6: The reference to “first direction” should be to “third direction”. Claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, defines the third direction as what would be the first direction in the disclosure, and vice versa. Claim 15, line 2: Change “increase” to “increases”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the first, second, and third directions. Claims 17-20 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. Regarding claim 17: This claim defines “first and second active patterns” in line 5, which can be interpreted as (a) “a first active pattern and a second active pattern” or as (b) “first active patterns and second active patterns”. However, the claim refers to “first active patterns” or “the first active pattern” as well as “second active patterns” or “the second active pattern”. See lines 9, 11, 13, and 15-16. Thus, the initial definition of “first and second active patterns” is confusing because the language is unclear whether (a) or (b) has been defined. Because the language is unclear, claim 17 is rejected as indefinite. Claims 18-20 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1. Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 17: Lines 2-3 refer to “the most adjacent bit lines”. However, the language is unclear about the difference between adjacent bit lines and “most” adjacent bit lines. Because the language is unclear, claim 20 is rejected as indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 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, and if the claim informalities in claims 10 and 15 were addressed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a peripheral gate structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate; a first connection wiring structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate and connected to the peripheral gate structure and the bit line; a second connection wiring structure disposed on the second surface of the second substrate; and a through via penetrating the second substrate and connecting the first connection wiring structure and the second connection wiring structure”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claims 2-10: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above. With regard to claim 11: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a peripheral gate structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate; a first connection wiring structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate and connected to the peripheral gate structure; […] and a through via penetrating the second substrate and connecting the first connection wiring structure and the second connection wiring structure”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claims 12-16: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 11 above. With regard to claim 17: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a peripheral gate structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate; a first connection wiring structure disposed on the first surface of the second substrate and connected to the peripheral gate structure; […] a second connection wiring structure disposed on the second surface of the second substrate; and a through via penetrating the second substrate and connecting the first connection wiring structure and the second connection wiring structure”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. With regard to claims 18-20: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 17 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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. /Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604682
METHODS FOR PATTERNING A SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE USING METALATE SALT IONIC LIQUID CRYSTALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588559
DISPLAY PANEL, TILED DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575400
POWER PLANES AND PASS-THROUGH VIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557503
Display Substrate and Preparation Method Therefor, and Display Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12557508
LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, IMAGING DEVICE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
99%
With Interview (+19.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 811 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