Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/813,599

NEURAL NETWORK SYSTEM, HIGH EFFICIENCY EMBEDDED-ARTIFICIAL SYNAPTIC ELEMENT AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Jul 19, 2022
Examiner
LEBOEUF, JEROME LARRY
Art Unit
2824
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
National Tsing Hua University
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
430 granted / 506 resolved
+17.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
527
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 506 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments. 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 . 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Amendment Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Amendment, filed 02-11-2026. The changes and remarks disclosed therein have been considered. Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, and claim(s) 6 has/have been cancelled, claim(s) 1-4, and 6-10 remain(s) pending in the application. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 17/813598. The claims recite substantially the same limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 1-4 are allowed. Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to as being subject to a double patenting rejection, but would be allowable if a terminal disclosure is filed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 1): a first contact connected between the metal layer and the drain region of the select transistor; and a second contact connected between the metal layer and the connection region; … wherein a length of the first contact is equal to a length of the second contact. The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 10): each of the diodes is coupled to the two metal layers of each two of the high efficiency embedded-artificial synaptic elements adjacent to each other in a vertical direction, each of the diodes has an anode end, and the anode ends of the diodes arranged in row are connected to each other and gather an output current; wherein each of the diodes determines whether to conduct or not according to the two output voltages of the two metal layers of each two of the high efficiency embedded-artificial synaptic elements adjacent to each other in the vertical direction. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME LARRY LEBOEUF whose telephone number is (571)272-7612. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00AM - 6:00PM EST. 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, RICHARD ELMS can be reached at (517)272-1869. 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. /JEROME LEBOEUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 - 03/06/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Feb 11, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603136
THREE-DIMENSIONAL NOR MEMORY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604675
Generating Self-Aligned Heater for PCRAM Using Filaments
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596495
POWER SAVING DURING OPEN BLOCK READ WITH LARGE BLOCK OPENNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597456
FIELD-PROGRAMMABLE FERRO-DIODES FOR RECONFIGURABLE IN-MEMORY-COMPUTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588430
ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION TUNING FOR CHALCOGENIDE BASED MEMORY ARRANGED IN A PLURALITY OF DECKS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+7.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 506 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