Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,414

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
DIALLO, MAMADOU L
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1207 granted / 1315 resolved
+23.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1344
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1315 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Specification The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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) 1,3,7,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, US 20210328039 A1. PNG media_image1.png 434 526 media_image1.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 1, Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) A semiconductor device comprising: a substrate[100]; an active pattern[101] on the substrate[100], the active pattern[101] extending in a first horizontal direction; first[11], second[112], and third [113] nanosheets sequentially stacked on the active pattern[101], the first to third nanosheets [11,112,113] are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction, wherein the third nanosheet [113] is an uppermost nanosheet of the first to third nanosheets; a gate electrode[121] on the active pattern[101] and extending in a second horizontal direction crossing the first horizontal direction, the gate electrode[121] surrounding each of the first, second, and third nanosheets ( see fig.4); a source/drain region[160] on the active pattern[101] and disposed on at least one side of the gate electrode[121]; an interlayer insulating layer[140] covering the source/drain region[160]; and a source/drain contact[165] penetrating the interlayer insulating layer[140] in the vertical direction, the source/drain contact[165] is connected to the source/drain region[160], wherein at least a portion of the interlayer insulating layer[140] is disposed between sidewalls of the source/drain contact [165] and the source/drain region[160] in the first horizontal direction, the at least portion( using BRI for any small portion in the same plane) of the interlayer insulating layer[140] overlapping sidewalls of the third nanosheet[113] along the first horizontal direction. Pertaining to claim 3, Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the sidewalls of the source/drain contact[165] do not directly contact the source/drain region[160]. Pertaining to claim 7, Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain contact[165] is flat. Pertaining to claim 10, Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the source/drain contact[165] is composed of a single film. 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 (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 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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20210328039 A1 in view of Hong et al, US 20230120532 A1 PNG media_image2.png 490 498 media_image2.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 8 and 11, Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) the semiconductor device of claim 1, but is silent about wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain contact has a convex curved shape extending towards the substrate and also silent about The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the source/drain contact includes a barrier layer defining the sidewalls and a bottom surface of the source/drain contact, and a filling layer disposed on the barrier layer. However, in the same filed of endeavor, Hong teaches ( see fig.27 of Hong above) wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain contact [160] has a convex curved shape extending towards the substrate[101 and wherein the source/drain contact[160] includes a barrier layer [161] defining the sidewalls and a bottom surface of the source/drain contact[160], and a filling layer[163] disposed on the barrier layer[161]. In view of Hong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate those teaching of Hong into that of Lee as a matter of design choice and further to prevent diffusion of the filling layer and cause leakage. Claim(s) 9,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US 20210328039 A1 in view of Kim et al, US 20220285493 A1. Pertaining to claim 9,12 Lee teaches ( see fig.3 above) The semiconductor device of claim 1, but is silent to further comprising: an inner spacer disposed between the source/drain region and a portion of the gate electrode positioned between each of the first, second, and third nanosheets and between the source/drain region and a portion of the gate electrode positioned between the first nanosheet and the active pattern and further silent wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain contact overlaps sidewalls of the second nanosheet along the first horizontal direction. However, in the same filed of endeavor, Kim teaches ( see fig.2 of Kim) to further comprising: an inner spacer [114] disposed between the source/drain region[140] and a portion of the gate electrode[110] positioned between each of the first, second, and third nanosheets[NW1s] and between the source/drain region[140] and a portion of the gate electrode[110] positioned between the first nanosheet and the active pattern[101] and also wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain contact[160] overlaps sidewalls of the second nanosheet[NW1s] along the first horizontal direction. In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate those teaching of Kim into that of Lee a s matter of design choice by improving the reliability of the semiconductor device and lowering the driving power of the semiconductor device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-20 allowed. The closest prior art of record of Lee et al, US 20210328039 A1 teaches the limitation of " A semiconductor device comprising: a substrate; an active pattern on the substrate, the active pattern extending in a first horizontal direction; first, second, and third nanosheets sequentially stacked on the active pattern, the first to third nanosheets are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction, wherein the third nanosheet is an uppermost nanosheet of the first to third nanosheets; a gate electrode on the active pattern, the gate electrode extending in a second horizontal direction crossing the first horizontal direction, the gate electrode surrounding each of the first, second, and third nanosheets; a source/drain region on the active pattern and disposed on at least one side of the gate electrode, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 13 including “an etching stop layer disposed along a top surface of the source/drain region; a source/drain contact penetrating the etching stop layer in the vertical direction, the source/drain contact is connected to the source/drain region; and a silicide layer disposed between a bottom surface of the source/drain contact and the source/drain region, wherein the silicide layer is not disposed on sidewalls of the source/drain contact, wherein at least a portion of the etching stop layer is disposed between sidewalls of the source/drain contact and the source/drain region, the at least portion of the etching stop layer overlapping sidewalls of the third nanosheet along the first horizontal direction.” it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 20 including “an etching stop layer disposed along a top surface of the source/drain region; an interlayer insulating layer disposed on the etching stop layer; a source/drain contact penetrating the etching stop layer and the interlayer insulating layer in the vertical direction, the source/drain contact is connected to the source/drain region; and a silicide layer disposed between a bottom surface of the source/drain contact and the is source/drain region, the silicide layer is not disposed on sidewalls of the source/drain contact, wherein at least a portion of the etching stop layer and at least a portion of the interlayer insulating layer is disposed between the sidewalls of the source/drain contact and the source/drain region, the at least portion of the etching stop layer and the at least portion of the interlayer insulating layer overlapping the third nanosheet along the first horizontal direction; and wherein inner sidewalls of the source/drain region that face the sidewalls of the source/drain contact have a rectilinearly inclined profile extending from the bottom surface of the source/drain contact towards the sidewalls of the third nanosheet.” Claims 2,4-6 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. The closest prior art of record of Dip (US 2012/0003825 A1) teaches the limitation of claim 1, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 2 including “further comprising: an etching stop layer disposed between the source/drain region and the interlayer insulating layer, wherein at least a portion of the etching stop layer is disposed between the sidewalls of the source/drain contact and the sidewalls of the source/drain region in the first horizontal direction, the at least portion of the etching stop layer overlapping the third nanosheet along the first horizontal direction.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 4 including “further comprising: a silicide layer disposed between a bottom surface of the source/drain contact and the source/drain region, wherein the silicide layer is not disposed on the sidewalls of the source/drain contact.” it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 5 including “wherein inner sidewalls of the source/drain region that face the sidewalls of the source/drain contact have a rectilinearly inclined profile extending from a bottom surface of the source/drain contact towards the sidewalls of the third nanosheet.” it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 6 including “wherein inner sidewalls of the source/drain region that face the sidewalls of the source/drain contact have a convex inclined profile extending towards the sidewalls of the source/drain contact.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU L DIALLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-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, FERNANDO TOLEDO can be reached at (571)272-1867. 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. /MAMADOU L DIALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604773
ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING OPAQUE LAYER WITH OPENING FOR LIGHT TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598758
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING DUMMY PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598850
DISPLAY MODULE AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593467
THIN FILM SEMICONDUCTOR SWITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588221
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FLASH MEMORY WITH HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRATION
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
92%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+3.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1315 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