Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/530,211

STRUCTURE HAVING MULTI-DIELECTRIC LAYERS

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Examiner
WHALEN, DANIEL B
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mikro Mesa Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
793 granted / 993 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1046
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 993 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/530,238 (corresponding US 2025/0194151 A1; hereinafter “Application 238”) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0054390 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 1, Application 238 teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers (a structure having multi-dielectric layers), comprising: a conduction channel containing aluminum (a conduction channel containing aluminum); a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a sidewall oxide dielectric structure) in contact with a side surface of the conduction channel and having a first effective permittivity; and a top oxide dielectric structure (a top oxide dielectric structure) in contact with a top surface of the conduction channel and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and having a second effective permittivity, wherein the first effective permittivity is greater than the second effective permittivity (See Application 238, claim 1). Claim 1 of Application 238 does not explicitly recite that a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises silicon. Chen teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers (130) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 14), comprising: a top oxide dielectric structure (a top portion of 138) in contact with a top surface of a conduction channel (a top surface of 132) and a top surface of a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a top surface of a side portion of 138 laterally adjacent to 132), wherein a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises silicon such as silicon dioxide as a readily available dielectric material choice known in the art (Fig. 1B and paragraph 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Application 238 in view of Chen in order to provide the dielectric structure comprising silicon such as silicon dioxide as the readily available dielectric material choice known in the art. Regarding claim 2, Application 238 teaches wherein an atomic ratio of aluminum in the conduction channel is greater than 50% (Application 238, claim 2). Regarding claim 3, Application 238 teaches wherein a metal composition of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and a metal composition of the top oxide dielectric structure are different (Application 238, claim 3). Regarding claim 4, Application 238 teaches wherein the sidewall oxide dielectric structure comprises at least one metal oxide segment, the top oxide dielectric structure comprises at least one metal oxide layer, and a sum of a segment number of the at least one metal oxide segment of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and a layer number of the at least one metal oxide layer of the top oxide dielectric structure is equal to or greater than three (Application 238, claim 4). Regarding claim 5, Application 238 teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises rare earth metal (Application 238, claim 5). Regarding claim 6, Application 238 teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises at least one of hafnium, tantalum, zirconium, titanium, and tungsten (Application 238, claim 6). Regarding claim 7, Application 238 teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises aluminum, magnesium, strontium, magnesium, calcium strontium, or scandium (Application 238, claim 7). Regarding claim 8, Application 238 teaches wherein a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure is smaller than 10 μm (Application 238, claim 8). Regarding claim 9, Application 238 teaches wherein a thickness of the conduction channel is equal to or greater than 1/10 of a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure (Application 238, claim 9). Regarding claim 10, Application 238 teaches further comprising a conductive pattern crossing the conduction channel through the top oxide dielectric structure (Application 238, claim 10). Regarding claim 11, Application 238 teaches wherein the top surface of the conduction channel has a covered section covered by the top oxide dielectric structure and two uncovered sections exposed by the top oxide dielectric structure (Application 238, claim 11). Regarding claim 12, Application 238 teaches wherein the top surface of the conduction channel has a covered section covered by the top oxide dielectric structure and at least one uncovered section exposed by the top oxide dielectric structure (Application 238, claim 12). Regarding claim 13, Application 238 teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; a source electrode covering the semiconductor layer; and a drain electrode covering the semiconductor layer and spaced apart from the source electrode by a gap, wherein the gap is right above the conduction channel (Application 238, claim 13). Regarding claim 14, Application 238 teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; and a metal pattern covering the semiconductor layer and comprising an anodic oxide segment and two conductive segments electrically isolated from each other by the anodic oxide segment, wherein the anodic oxide segment is right above the conduction channel (Application 238, claim 14). Regarding claim 15, Application 238 teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; an etching stopper disposed on the semiconductor layer and right above the conduction channel; a source electrode covering the semiconductor layer and the etching stopper; and a drain electrode covering the semiconductor layer and the etching stopper and spaced apart from the source electrode by a gap on the etching stopper (Application 238, claim 15). Regarding claim 16, Application 238 teaches wherein the conduction channel is a multilayer structure (Application 238, claim 16). Regarding claim 17, Application 238 teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure comprises a plurality of metal oxide layers, and a layer number of the metal oxide layers is equal to or greater than two (Application 238, claim 17). Regarding claim 18, Application 238 teaches further comprising: a conductor layer covering on the top oxide dielectric structure and forming a capacitor with the conduction channel (Application 238, claim 18). Regarding claim 19, Application 238 teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure comprises an amorphous phase layer (Application 238, claim 19). Regarding claim 20, Application 238 teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure is a multilayer structure, and the amorphous phase layer is a topmost layer of the top oxide dielectric structure (Application 238, claim 20). Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/530,212 (corresponding US 2025/0191922 A1; hereinafter “Application 212”) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0054390 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 1, Application 212 teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers (an electrode with multi-dielectric layers), comprising: a conduction channel (a metal pattern); a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a sidewall oxide dielectric structure) in contact with a side surface of the conduction channel and having a first effective permittivity; and a top oxide dielectric structure (a top oxide dielectric structure) in contact with a top surface of the conduction channel and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and having a second effective permittivity, a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises silicon (the top oxide dielectric structure contains silicon oxide), wherein the first effective permittivity is greater than the second effective permittivity (See Application 212, claim 26, which depends from claim 25, which depends from claim 1). Claim 26 of Application 212 does not explicitly recite that the conduction channel contains aluminum. Chen teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers (130) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 14), comprising: a conduction channel containing aluminum (an electrode 132 formed of aluminum) as a readily available conductive material choice known in the art (Fig. 1B and paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Application 212 in view of Chen in order to provide the conductive structure comprising aluminum as the readily available conductive material choice known in the art. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2017/0054390 A1; hereinafter “Chen”). Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers, comprising: a conduction channel containing aluminum (132 formed of aluminum) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 28); a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a side portion of 138) in contact with a side surface of the conduction channel (a side surface of 132) (See an annotated Fig. 1B below and paragraph 31); and a top oxide dielectric structure (a top portion of 138) in contact with a top surface of the conduction channel (a top surface of 132) and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a top surface of the side portion of 138), a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises silicon (the top portion of 138 formed of silicon dioxide) (See the annotated Fig. 1B below and paragraph 31). PNG media_image1.png 801 1810 media_image1.png Greyscale Chen teaches each and every limitation of claim 1 directed to the structure having multi-dielectric layers structurally and compositionally identical to claim 1 as discussed above. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite any additional feature to distinguish over Chen teaching the identical structure structurally and compositionally. As such, since Chen teaches the structure having multi-dielectric layers structurally and compositionally identical to claim 1 and since claim 1 does not further recite any distinct feature to distinguish over Chen teaching the identical structure, claimed property or characteristics (i.e., “a sidewall oxide dielectric structure…having a first effective permittivity…a top oxide dielectric structure…having a second effective permittivity…wherein the first effective permittivity is greater than the second effective permittivity”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches wherein an atomic ratio of aluminum in the conduction channel is greater than 50% (paragraph 28, 132 formed of aluminum is substantially 100% aluminum). Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches wherein the sidewall oxide dielectric structure comprises at least one metal oxide segment (for example, the side portion of 138 is further horizontally divided into two portions), the top oxide dielectric structure comprises at least one metal oxide layer, and a sum of a segment number of the at least one metal oxide segment of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and a layer number of the at least one metal oxide layer of the top oxide dielectric structure is equal to or greater than three (a sum of the two portions of the side portion of 138 and the top portion of 138 is equal to three) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 31). Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises at least one of hafnium, tantalum, zirconium, titanium, and tungsten (138 formed of a combination of hafnium dioxide and silicon dioxide) (paragraph 31). Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises aluminum, magnesium, strontium, magnesium, calcium strontium, or scandium (138 formed of a combination of aluminum oxide and silicon dioxide) (paragraph 31). Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches wherein the conduction channel is a multilayer structure (132 including plural conductive layers) (paragraph 28). Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure comprises a plurality of metal oxide layers, and a layer number of the metal oxide layers is equal to or greater than two (the top portion of 138 is further horizontally divided into two portions) (Fig. 1B). Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure comprises an amorphous phase layer (for example, the top portion of 138 formed of silicon oxide is substantially amorphous) (paragraph 31). Regarding claim 20, Chen teaches wherein the top oxide dielectric structure is a multilayer structure (the top portion of 138 is further horizontally divided into two portions), and the amorphous phase layer is a topmost layer of the top oxide dielectric structure (for example, the top portion of 138 formed of silicon oxide is substantially amorphous) (paragraph 31). Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 2010/0025676 A1; hereinafter “Yamazaki”). Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers, comprising: a conduction channel containing aluminum (101 formed of aluminum) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 91); a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a side portion of 102 laterally/horizontally adjacent to 101) in contact with a side surface of the conduction channel (a side surface of 101) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 96); and a top oxide dielectric structure (a top portion of 102) in contact with a top surface of the conduction channel (a top surface of 101) and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure (a top surface of the side portion of 102), a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises silicon (the top portion of 102 formed of silicon oxynitride) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 96). Yamazaki teaches each and every limitation of claim 1 directed to the structure having multi-dielectric layers structurally and compositionally identical to claim 1 as discussed above. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite any additional feature to distinguish over Yamazaki teaching the identical structure structurally and compositionally. As such, since Yamazaki teaches the structure having multi-dielectric layers structurally and compositionally identical to claim 1 and since claim 1 does not further recite any distinct feature to distinguish over Yamazaki teaching the identical structure, claimed property or characteristics (i.e., “a sidewall oxide dielectric structure…having a first effective permittivity…a top oxide dielectric structure…having a second effective permittivity…wherein the first effective permittivity is greater than the second effective permittivity”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein a metal composition of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and a metal composition of the top oxide dielectric structure are different (considering the side portion of 102 only including 102a and the top portion of 102 including a combination of 102a and 102b, metal compositions are different) (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 96-99). Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the material of the top oxide dielectric structure further comprises rare earth metal (102b of 102 including yttrium oxide) (paragraph 99). Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki teaches wherein a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure is smaller than 10 μm (a combined thickness of 101 having 150 nm and each of 102a and 102b having 150 nm is less than 10 μm) (paragraphs 92 and 96). Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki teaches wherein a thickness of the conduction channel is equal to or greater than 1/10 of a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure (a thickness of 101 having 150 nm is greater than 1/10 of a combined thickness of 101 having 150 nm and each of 102a and 102b having 150 nm) (paragraphs 92 and 96). Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki teaches further comprising a conductive pattern (105a and 105b) crossing the conduction channel through the top oxide dielectric structure (Fig. 1A and paragraph 84). Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki teaches wherein the top surface of the conduction channel has a covered section covered by the top oxide dielectric structure and two uncovered sections exposed by the top oxide dielectric structure (top and bottom exposed portions of 101) (Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki teaches wherein the top surface of the conduction channel has a covered section covered by the top oxide dielectric structure and at least one uncovered section exposed by the top oxide dielectric structure (top exposed portion of 101 connected to a gate line) (Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer (103) covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; a source electrode (105a) covering the semiconductor layer; and a drain electrode (105b) covering the semiconductor layer and spaced apart from the source electrode by a gap (a gap between 10a and 105b), wherein the gap is right above the conduction channel (Fig. 1B and paragraph 84). Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer (103) covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; and a metal pattern (104a and 104b) covering the semiconductor layer and comprising an anodic oxide segment (106) and two conductive segments (105a and 105b) electrically isolated from each other by the anodic oxide segment, wherein the anodic oxide segment is right above the conduction channel (Fig. 1B and paragraphs 84-86). Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki teaches further comprising: a semiconductor layer (103) covering the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and the top oxide dielectric structure; an etching stopper (106) disposed on the semiconductor layer and right above the conduction channel (paragraph 142); a source electrode (105a) covering the semiconductor layer and the etching stopper; and a drain electrode (105b) covering the semiconductor layer and the etching stopper and spaced apart from the source electrode by a gap (a gap between 105a and 105b) on the etching stopper (Fig. 1B and paragraph 84). 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsushita et al. (US 2002/0105048 A1; hereinafter “Matsushita”). Regarding claim 18, Chen does not explicitly teach further comprising: a conductor layer covering on the top oxide dielectric structure and forming a capacitor with the conduction channel. Matsushita teaches a structure having multi-dielectric layers, further comprising: a conductor layer (23 as an upper electrode) covering on a top oxide dielectric structure (a top portion of 22) and forming a capacitor with a conduction channel (a combination of 20 and 21 as a bottom electrode) in order to provide a capacitor element by utilizing additional conductor layer over the conduction channel (Fig. 1 and paragraph 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chen with that of Matsushita in order to provide the capacitor element by utilizing additional conductor layer over the conduction channel. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604720
THROUGH MOLD INTERCONNECT DRILL FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593440
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING SINGLE CRYSTAL SEMICONDUCTOR PATTERN WITH COMPLEMENTARY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588396
ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY PANEL COMPRISING LIGHT ADJUSTING LAYER BETWEEN TRANSPARENT LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581790
ELETROLUMINESCENT DEVICE INCLUDING POLYCARBOXYLIC ACID COMPOUND AND HALOGEN AT INTERFACE BETWEEN ELECTRON TRANSPORT LAYER AND LIGHT EMITTING LAYER, AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581722
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING IMPURITY REGIONS AND ELEMENT ISOLATION PORTION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
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
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 993 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