Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/503,801

ELECTRONIC COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Examiner
WALL, VINCENT
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 793 resolved
-6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
845
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 793 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 . Election/Restrictions At this time Examiner is not requiring an election or restriction. Examiner reserves the right to require an election or restriction at a further time. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 7, 2023; July 16, 2024; May 5, 2025; and August 19, 2025 were considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 11-13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima et al. (US 2013/0094120 A1) (“Sasajima”), in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0112836 A1) (“Kim”). Regarding claim 1, Sasajima teaches: a substrate (12); a capacitor (detailed below) including a lower layer electrode (14), a dielectric film (16), and an upper layer electrode (18) sequentially laminated, from a side closest to the substrate, on a partial area of an upper surface serving as one surface of the substrate (this is shown in at least figures 3A-E); and a coating (20) on or above the dielectric film (16), the coating extending (20), when the upper surface is viewed in plan, throughout an edge of the lower layer electrode from an area inside the edge of the lower layer electrode to an area outside the edge (figures 3A-3E show the coating extending as required in a cross-section view. When said figures are viewed from the top they will form the claimed view), and the coating (20) including an insulating metal oxide or a silicon oxide (¶ 0020). Sasajima does not explicitly state: a substrate including a compound semiconductor. Sasajima teaches: The MIM capacitor is made on a substrate is silicon ¶ 0020. Kim teaches: That one can make a MIM capacitor on either silicon or a compound semiconductor such as GaAs. ¶ 0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious, as evidenced by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would know they could swap out the silicon substrate of Sasajima for a compound semiconductor as they are functionally equivalent in the art, and know obvious replacement for each other. MPEP 2144.06-07. Regarding claim 2, Sasajima teaches: wherein the coating (20) is thinner than the dielectric film (16) (¶ 0021, where 16 is 150 nm; ¶ 0022, where 20 is 82 nm). Regarding claim 3, Sasajima teaches: wherein an undercoat surface (20) of the coating includes (detailed below) a flat area parallel to the upper surface of the substrate (there is a flat surface underneath 20), and a step area on which a step is defined from side surfaces of the lower layer electrode (this is so shown in at least the abstract drawing), and a thickness of a portion of the coating covering the step area is equal to a thickness of a portion of the coating covering the flat area (this is shown in at least the abstract drawing). Regarding claim 4, Sasajima teaches: wherein a metal oxide of the coating is at least one of an aluminium oxide, a hafnium oxide, a zirconium oxide, a titanium oxide, a tantalum oxide, a gallium oxide, a zinc oxide, and a strontium titanate (¶ 0022). Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches: wherein the compound semiconductor of the substrate is GaAs (¶ 0031).. Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 contains the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 contains the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 contains the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 contains the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Claim(s) 5, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasajima, in view of Kim, in view of Tsunetoshi et al. (WO 2010/082605) (“Tsunetoshi”) by means of machine translation. Regarding claim 5, Sasajima teaches: Where the coating (20) is above the upper layer electrode (18). Sasajima does not teach: wherein the coating is between the dielectric film and the upper layer electrode. Tsunetoshi teaches at least in figure 4: The capacitor’s dielectric can be made from a dual layer material (54-55). This dual layer material is one of ZrO2 and TiO2. TiO2 is the same material allowed by Applicant. Therefore, it can be treated at the coating material. Tsunetoshi teaches that by adding TiO2 to the top of the MIM dielectric one can reduce the leakage current of the MIM capacitor at the same time increase the capacitance density of the MIM Capacitor. Pg. 5. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sasajima in order to gain the benefits described by Tsunetoshi. Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 contains the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 20, Tsunetoshi teaches at least in figure 4: wherein the coating (55) is formed by atomic layer deposition (Pg. 5). Claim(s) 1, 6-9, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2016/0035817 A1) (“Hsu”), in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0112836 A1) (“Kim”). Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches: a substrate (¶ 0030 not shown); a capacitor (detailed below) including a lower layer electrode (104), a dielectric film (106), and an upper layer electrode (108) sequentially laminated, from a side closest to the substrate, on a partial area of an upper surface serving as one surface of the substrate (this is shown in at least figure 1A); and a coating (118) on or above the dielectric film (106), the coating extending (118), when the upper surface is viewed in plan, throughout an edge of the lower layer electrode from an area inside the edge of the lower layer electrode to an area outside the edge (figures 1A show the coating extending as required in a cross-section view. When said figures are viewed from the top they will form the claimed view), and the coating (118) including an insulating metal oxide or a silicon oxide (¶ 0043). Sasajima does not explicitly state: a substrate including a compound semiconductor. Sasajima teaches: The MIM capacitor is made on a substrate is silicon ¶ 0020. Kim teaches: That one can make a MIM capacitor on either silicon or a compound semiconductor such as GaAs. ¶ 0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious, as evidenced by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would know they could swap out the silicon substrate of Sasajima for a compound semiconductor as they are functionally equivalent in the art, and know obvious replacement for each other. MPEP 2144.06-07. Regarding claim 6, Hsu teaches: wherein the coating (118) is on the upper layer electrode (108). Regarding claim 7, Hsu teaches: an insulator film (112) between the upper layer electrode (108) and the coating (118). Regarding claim 8, Hsu teaches: wherein when the upper surface is viewed in plan, an edge of the lower layer electrode and an edge of the upper layer electrode are at positions shifted from each other (while the shifting is not shown in the prior art this would have been obvious due to standard semiconductor process variations in each step of the semiconductor processing. For example this shift is called overlay in the photolithography process. Every tool ever invented for the semiconductor photolithography process has an inherent overlay. Overlay is the term for being able to put one layer on top of another. Thus, simply by the fact of using semiconductor processes to make the prior art device one would inherently, or obviously, manufacture a device with the claimed characteristics). Regarding claim 9, Hsu teaches: wherein when the upper surface is viewed in plan, a portion of the edge of the upper layer electrode is inward from the edge of the lower layer electrode, and a remaining portion of the edge of the upper layer electrode is outward from the edge of the lower layer electrode (this limitation is obvious for the same reasons given in claim 1 and 8 above.). Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 contains the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 contains the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 contains the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST. 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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. /VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604480
Ferroelectric Memory Device and Method of Forming the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588499
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT HEAT SPREADER INCLUDING SEALANT INTERFACE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581688
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE, AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581808
ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581747
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
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
62%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+25.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 793 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