Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/536,975

MULTIPLE FIN HEIGHTS FOR EFFECTIVE WIDTH TUNING

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Examiner
HAN, JONATHAN
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1032 granted / 1240 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1283
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1240 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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. 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. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0108528 A1; hereinafter Anderson). With respect to claim 11, Anderson discloses a semiconductor structure comprising: a plurality of fins [1161,1162,1163] formed over a substrate, the plurality of fins comprising a first fin comprising a first height, a second fin comprising a second height different than the first height, and a third fin comprising a third height different than the first height and the second height; and a gate [1551,1552,1553] formed over the first fin, the second fin, and the third fin; wherein an effective width of the first fin is less than an effective width of the second fin and the effective width of the second fin is less than an effective width of the third fin (See ¶[0005-0008]; The effective fin width is determined by the fin height (e.g., short wide fins can cause partial depletion of a channel)). PNG media_image1.png 356 525 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 12. The semiconductor structure of claim 11, wherein topmost surfaces of each fin of the plurality of fins are coplanar (See Figure 15). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10, 16-25 are allowed. Claims 13-15 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. With respect to claims 1-5, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a semiconductor structure comprising: a first shallow trench isolation (STI) region formed over a first portion of a substrate; a second STI region formed over a second portion of the substrate, a first fin formed in and above the first STI region; a second fin formed in and above the second STI region, and a bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region positioned directly between the first fin and the substrate, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. With respect to claims 6-10, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a semiconductor structure comprising: a first bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region positioned directly between the first fin and the n-type region of the substrate; and a second BDI region positioned directly between the second fin and the p-type region of the substrate, wherein a height of the second BDI region is different than a height of the first BDI region, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. With respect to claims 13-15, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a first bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region positioned directly between the first fin and the substrate; a second BDI region positioned directly between the second fin and the substrate; and a third BDI region positioned directly between the third fin and the substrate. With respect to claims 16-20, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a method for forming a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a first shallow trench isolation (STI) region over a first portion of a substrate; forming a second STI region over a second portion of the substrate, forming a first fin in and above the first STI region; forming a second fin in and above the second STI region, and forming a bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region directly between the first fin and the substrate, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. With respect to claims 21-25, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, a method for forming a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a first bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region directly between the first fin and the n-type region of the substrate; and forming a second BDI region directly between the second fin and the p-type region of the substrate, wherein a height of the second BDI region is different than a height of the first BDI region, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Frougier et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0231020 A1) discloses fins with multiple effective widths but fails to disclose a first bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region positioned directly between the first fin and the n-type region of the substrate; and a second BDI region positioned directly between the second fin and the p-type region of the substrate, wherein a height of the second BDI region is different than a height of the first BDI region, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. -Xiong et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,638,843 B2) discloses multi-gate device with fins of multiple effective widths but fails to disclose a first shallow trench isolation (STI) region formed over a first portion of a substrate; a second STI region formed over a second portion of the substrate, a first fin formed in and above the first STI region; a second fin formed in and above the second STI region, and a bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region positioned directly between the first fin and the substrate, thereby providing the first fin having a first effective width and the second fin having a second effective width different than the first effective width. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM 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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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. /JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604548
REDUCED-HEIGHT IMAGE-CAPTURING MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604587
BACKLIGHT MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598975
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599047
OPTOELECTRONIC MICRODEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593471
VOLTAGE CONTRAST STRUCTURE FOR TRENCH CONNECTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1240 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