Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/522,590

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
CRITE, ANTONIO B
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rohm Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
351 granted / 435 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -12% lift
Without
With
+-11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
466
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 435 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This Action is responsive to the communication filed on 11/29/2023. 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Initially, and with respect to Claim 8, note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product-by-process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935). Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komiya (US 2020/0083239). Regarding claim 1, Komiya (see, e.g., FIG. 1) discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor substrate S (Para 0065); and a substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top), disposed on the semiconductor substrate S, wherein the substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top) includes: a first oxide film 101 (2nd from top) (Para 0069); a second oxide film 101 (top), disposed on the first oxide film 101 (2nd from top) and separated from the first oxide film 101 (2nd from top) (Para 0069); and a first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) and a second nitride insulating layer 121A (top) disposed between the first oxide film 101 (2nd from top) and the second oxide film 101 (top), wherein the second nitride insulating layer 121A (top) has a film density higher than a film density of the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) (Para 0090, Para 0145). Regarding claim 7, Komiya (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) has an upper surface e.g., upper surface 111A (top) and a lower surface e.g., lower surface of 111A (top) facing opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top), the second nitride insulating layer 121A (top) is provided on the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top), the substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top) further includes a third nitride insulating layer 121A (2nd from top) in contact e.g., indirect contact with the lower surface e.g., upper surface 111A (top) of the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top), and the third nitride insulating layer 121A (2nd from top) has a film density higher than the film density of the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) (Para 0090, Para 0145). Regarding claim 8, Komiya (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top) is a plurality of insulating units including the second oxide film 101 (top), the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) and the second nitride insulating layer 121A (top) (Para 0090, Para 0145). Examiner Note: The following limitation is a product-by process limitation: “the substrate-side insulating layer is formed by laminating a plurality of insulating units.” "[E]ven though product–by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, whether or not the plurality of insulating units is laminated does not change the product, i.e., a plurality of insulating layers bonded to together. Regarding claim 9, Komiya (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the substrate-side insulating layer 101 (2nd from top), 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top) includes: a first insulating unit 111A (top), 121A (top), 101 (top), including the second oxide film 101 (top), the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top) and the second nitride insulating layer 121A (top) (Para 0145); and a second insulating unit 111A (2nd from top), 101 (third from top) including: a fourth nitride insulating layer 111A (2nd from top), formed of same material as the first nitride insulating layer 111A (top); and a third oxide film 101 (third from top), disposed on the fourth nitride insulating layer 111A (2nd from top) (Para 0090, Para 0145). 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya (US 2020/0083239), in view of Kobayashi (US 2023/0197686). Regarding claim 12, although Komiya shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Komiya fails to expressly teach a support member, supporting the semiconductor device; and a sealing resin, sealing the semiconductor device and the support member. Kobayahi (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches a semiconductor module, comprising: the semiconductor device e.g., MD(1) (Para 0045); a support member PS, supporting the semiconductor device e.g., MD(1) (Para 0046); and a sealing resin 20, sealing the semiconductor device e.g., MD(1) and the support member PS for the purpose of electrically connecting the memory device and the controller to external electronic device(s) (Para 0045, Para 0046, Para 0129). The combination of Komiya (see, e.g., FIG. 1) / Kobayahi (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches a semiconductor module, comprising: the semiconductor device e.g., semiconductor memory device (as taught by Komiya) of Claim 1; a support member PS (as taught by Kobayashi), supporting the semiconductor device e.g., semiconductor memory device (as taught by Komiya); and a sealing resin 20 (as taught by Kobayashi), sealing the semiconductor device e.g., semiconductor memory device (as taught by Komiya) and the support member PS (as taught by Kobayashi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the support member as described by Kobayashi to the memory device of Komiaya for the purpose of electrically connecting the memory device and the controller to external electronic device(s) (Para 0046). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6, 10-11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 pm. 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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. /ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604763
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A PLURALITY OF COMPONENTS, COMPONENT, AND COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593548
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588325
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588318
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588342
LIGHT-EMITTING PLATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
81%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (-11.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 435 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