Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/542,798

NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
AMER, MOUNIR S
Art Unit
2818
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rohm Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
531 granted / 602 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
626
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 602 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Status of the Application This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/542,798 filed on December 18 2023 in which claims 1 to15 are pending. Drawings The drawings submitted on December 18 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on December 18 2023 and February 28 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of paper submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) which has been placed of record in the file. Notation References to patents will be in the form of (C: L) where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of (¶ XXXX). Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 15, after includes, insert “:’. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 15, after includes, insert “:’. Appropriate correction is required. 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 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. (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 13 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Tanaka (US 2017/0104091 A1). Regarding claim 13, Tanaka teaches a nitride semiconductor device (Fig.1; ¶ 0048), comprising: an electron transit layer (4; Fig.1; ¶0053) composed of a nitride semiconductor (GaN; ¶ 0053); an electron supply layer (5; ¶ 0055) formed on the electron transit layer (¶ 0055) and composed of a nitride semiconductor having a band gap that is larger than that of the electron transit layer (layer 5 has a n Al composition higher than that of the first nitride semiconductor layer; ¶ 0055); a gate layer (7; ¶ 0058) formed on a portion of the electron supply layer (5) and composed of a nitride semiconductor including an acceptor impurity (¶ 0058); a gate electrode (8; ¶ 0049) formed on the gate layer (7); a passivation layer (9; Fig.1) covering the electron supply layer (5), the gate layer (7), and the gate electrode (8) and including a first opening (first opening formed on the side of 12a; Fig.1) and a second opening (second opening formed on the side of 11a; Fig.1); a drain electrode (12; ¶ 0050) in contact (electrical or thermal contact) with the electron supply layer (5) through the first opening (12a); and a source electrode (11; ¶ 0050) in contact with the electron supply layer (5) through the second opening (11a), wherein the gate layer (7) is arranged between the first opening (12a) and the second opening (11a), the passivation layer includes a first part formed on at least a portion of the electron supply layer (portion of passivation layer 9 formed on the sidewall between gate layer 7 and second opening 12a; annotated Figure 1 below) located between the first opening (12a) and the gate layer (7) in plan view, and a second part (portion of 9 formed between gate layer 7 and second opening 11a; annotated Fig.1) formed on the electron supply layer (5) located between the second opening (11a) and the gate layer (7) in plan view, and the second part is smaller in thickness than the first part (T2 is smaller than T1 as shown below). PNG media_image1.png 673 602 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches wherein the electron transit layer is GaN (¶ 0053), the electron supply layer is AlxGa1-xN, where 0.2 < x <0.3 (¶ 0054), and the gate layer is GaN doped with at least one of Mg and Zn (¶ 0058). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/0104091 A1). Regarding claim 14, Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum rating of gate-source voltage is greater than or equal to 8 V during application of a positive bias, and a maximum rating of gate-source voltage is greater than or equal to 4 V during application of a negative bias. However, Tanaka teaches the an ON voltage of 3V is applied to the gate and using the source electrode 11 as reference potential (0V) (¶ 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have a maximum rating of gate-source voltage is greater than or equal to 8 V during application of a positive bias, and a maximum rating of gate-source voltage is greater than or equal to 4 V during application of a negative bias in the device of Tanaka since claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114, II. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 is allowed because the prior art reference does not teach the following limitations: “…passivation layer includes a first insulation layer formed on at least a portion of the electron supply layer located between the first opening and the gate layer in plan view, and a second insulation layer formed on the electron supply layer located between the second opening and the gate layer in plan view and covering the gate layer and the gate electrode, and the second insulation layer is formed of a material having a smaller Young's modulus than a material forming the first insulation layer.” With the rest and each of the limitations of claim 1. The closest prior art reference Tanaka (US 2017/0104091 A1) teaches a passivation layer formed from one layer (9; Fig.1) and does not teach a first insulation and second insulation layer as claimed above in claim 1. Second closest prior art reference Tanaka et al. (US 2017/0104092 A1) teaches a passivation layer with first insulating layer (15, Fig.1; ¶ 0056) and a second insulating layer (16; Fig.1; ¶ 0056) formed above a gate (7; Fig.1) but does not teach the exact limitation of allowable subject matter of claim 1 above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, included in the PTO-892 Notice of Cited References. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mounir S Amer whose telephone number is (571)270-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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. /Mounir S Amer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 27, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 31, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604717
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598982
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES WITH INSULATED SOURCE/DRAIN JUMPER STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588217
Programming Current Control for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588218
CHALCOGENIDE MATERIAL, SWITCHING DEVICE INCLUDING THE CHALCOGENIDE MATERIAL, AND MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SWITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581871
PHASE-CHANGE MATERIAL (PCM) RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SWITCHING DEVICE WITH THIN SELF-ALIGNED DIELECTRIC LAYER
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
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 602 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