Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/730,284

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Priority
Jan 27, 2022 — JP 2022-010942 +1 more
Examiner
GUMEDZOE, PENIEL M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1099 granted / 1321 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1337
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1321 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 . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/18/24 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) 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) 1-6, 10-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohara et al. (JP 2018006507). a. Re claim 1, Ohara et al. disclose a semiconductor device comprising a heat dissipation unit 40 (see figs. 1-4&31-32 and related text; see at least pg. 3 and remaining of disclosure for more details) that penetrates a semiconductor layer 10 (pg. 4) and an insulating film 14 formed on a first surface side of the semiconductor layer and protrudes from the insulating film to be exposed. b. Re claim 2, the heat dissipation unit is isolated from the semiconductor layer by an element isolation region 13 (pg. 3). c. Re claim 3, the heat dissipation unit is connected with a predetermined metal wiring 41 of a wiring layer 22&41 formed on a second surface side opposite to the first surface side of the semiconductor layer. d. Re claim 4, an element 20a (pg. 3) is formed in the semiconductor layer. e. Re claim 5, the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprises a through electrode 30 (pg. 3) that has a same length (vertical thickness) as a length of the heat dissipation unit and penetrates the semiconductor layer and the insulating film. f. Re claim 6, the through electrode is connected with an electrode 31 (or 72; fig. 32 and related text) that is an external terminal. g. Re claim 10, a material of the heat dissipation unit is any of a metal material (pg. 3), diamond, and diamond-like carbon. h. Re claim 11, the semiconductor layer is a silicon layer (pg. 4). i. Re claim 12, the insulating film is a silicon oxide film (pg. 3). j. Re claim 13, the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprises a plurality of the heat dissipation units 40 (see fig. 17 and related text), wherein a three-dimensional shape of the heat dissipation unit is a pillar shape (figs. 1-4&32). k. Re claim 17, Ohara et al. disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising forming a heat dissipation unit 40 (see figs. 1-4 and related text; see at least pg. 3 and remaining of disclosure for more details) that penetrates a semiconductor layer 10 and an insulating film 14 formed on a first surface side of the semiconductor layer and protrudes from the insulating film to be exposed. l. Re claim 18, Ohara et al. disclose an electronic apparatus (figs. 32&1-4 and related text; see remaining of disclosure for more details) comprising a semiconductor device including a heat dissipation unit 40 that penetrates a semiconductor layer 10 and an insulating film 14 formed on a first surface side of the semiconductor layer and protrudes from the insulating film to be exposed. 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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al. (JP 2018006507). a. Re claim 14, Ohara et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above including the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of the heat dissipation units 40 (fig. 17 and related text), except explicitly that a three-dimensional shape of the heat dissipation unit is a rectangular parallelepiped. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, via a non-inventive change in shape (see MPEP 2144.04.IV), a three-dimensional shape of the heat dissipation unit to be a rectangular parallelepiped as desired by design or required by electrical/mechanical performance of the heat dissipation unit. b. Re claim 15, Ohara et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except explicitly that a three-dimensional shape of the heat dissipation unit is a structure in which a plate-shaped rectangular parallelepiped elongated in a longitudinal direction and a plate-shaped rectangular parallelepiped elongated in a lateral direction in plan view are combined. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided, via a non-inventive change in shape (see MPEP 2144.04.IV), a three-dimensional shape of the heat dissipation unit being a structure in which a plate-shaped rectangular parallelepiped elongated in a longitudinal direction and a plate-shaped rectangular parallelepiped elongated in a lateral direction in plan view are combined. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9 and 16 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 2011/0304038) and Chadwick et al. (US 2015/0115431) disclose structures and method of forming thereof similar to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM. 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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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. /PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702004
THERMAL EXPANSION MATCHED CHIP MODULE WITH INTEGRATED LIQUID COOLING
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12701949
CONTACT APPARATUS FOR ARRANGING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12701998
HEAT SPREADER ASSEMBLY FOR USE WITH A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12701842
MULTI-INK LAYERED PRINTED ELECTRODE FOR WRAP AROUND ELECTRODES
2y 6m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12696580
GROUP III-NITRIDE EXCITONIC HETEROSTRUCTURES
4y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+3.6%)
2y 2m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1321 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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