Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/758,311

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Examiner
RETEBO, METASEBIA T
Art Unit
2842
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toshiba Electronic Devices & Storage Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
571 granted / 639 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
670
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 639 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “a second signal”, but claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, does not introduce “a first signal” or any other signal to which the “second signal” could correspond. Therefore, the term “second signal” lack antecedent basis in the claim. Because the claim recites “second” a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a corresponding “first” signal to have been previously introduced. The absence of such an antecedent renders the scope of the claim unclear. Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C §112(b). Claim 19 recites “a fifth signal” but claims 1, 16 or 18 which claim 19 depends from, does not introduce any signal, including a first through fourth signal. Accordingly, claim 19 shows the same antecedent basis error and must be amended to correct this issue. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depended on claim 11. 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. Claims 1-2, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al. (US 2022/0011799 and Nagata hereinafter) Regarding claim 1, Nagata discloses a semiconductor device [fig. 1] comprising: a first transistor [81] having a gate-source withstand voltage lower than an externally input power supply voltage [input voltage VIN]; a first power supply circuit [linear power supply circuit voltage VREG (9, Figs. 1 and 8)] configured to output a first voltage [output voltage 24] lower than the externally input power supply voltage [par. 0083, fig. 8]; a first circuit [24 in driver 2] configured to drive a gate of the first transistor [gate 81] using the first voltage as a power supply [power supply VREG]; and a second circuit [current mirror comprising transistors 25 and 1, par. 39] configured to supply a first current [Ib] to the gate of the first transistor from a power supply voltage node [node T1] to which the externally input power supply voltage is supplied. Regarding claim 2, Nagata discloses [fig. 1] wherein a supply of the first current [current mirror] by the second circuit is carried out during a first duration of time in parallel to a supply of the first voltage [24] to the gate of the first transistor by the first circuit. Regarding claim 9, Nagata discloses [fig. 1] wherein the second circuit comprises a transistor [25/1], a resistance element [4/5], and a capacitor [CPD] coupled between the power supply voltage node and the gate of the first transistor in parallel to each other. Regarding claim 14, Nagata discloses [fig. 1] wherein the gate-source withstand voltage of the first transistor is lower than a drain-source withstand [inherent] voltage of the first transistor. 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. Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. Regarding claim 15, Nagata teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Nagata further discloses the first transistor [81, fig. 1] is a driver for driving a load [7, fig. 1]. Nagata does not explicitly disclose the load element is a transistor. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a particular type of load device, since it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a load type on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ416 (CCPA 1960). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-8, 10, 13 and 16-20 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. Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to METASEBIA T RETEBO whose telephone number is (571)272-9299. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5. 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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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. /METASEBIA T RETEBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603647
DRIVER CIRCUIT OF SWITCHING TRANSISTOR, LASER DRIVER CIRCUIT, AND CONTROLLER CIRCUIT OF CONVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603646
TRACK AND HOLD CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597915
CAPACITANCE CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592690
CONTROL CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592692
POWER DEVICE
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
89%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 639 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