Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/333,197

SRAM CELL WITH BALANCED WRITE PORT

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jun 12, 2023
Examiner
JUNGE, BRYAN R.
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
353 granted / 613 resolved
-10.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
648
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
60.4%
+20.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 613 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments and the accompanying arguments with respect to the first and fifth transistors being of a first conductivity type and the second transistor being of a second conductivity type opposite the first conductivity type, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nii (US 2003/0185044). Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “conductive” at the end of line 11 should be changed to “conductivity.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nii (US 2003/0185044). In reference to claim 1, Nii (US 2003/0185044), hereafter “Nii,” discloses a semiconductor device, with reference to Figure 15, comprising: first, second, third, fourth, and fifth active regions, (annotated 1-5 in Figure 15 reproduced below), each extending lengthwise along a first direction, vertical, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth active regions comprise channel regions and source/drain (S/D) regions of first, second, third, and fourth transistors, N2, P2, N7, N3, respectively, and the fifth active region comprises channel regions and S/D regions of fifth, N6, and sixth, N5, transistors; and first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth gates, PL2, PL3, PL4 each extending lengthwise along a second direction, horizontal, perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the first through sixth gates are configured to engage the channel regions of the first through sixth transistors respectively, wherein: the first, N2, and fifth, N6, transistors are of a first conductivity type, (n-type), the second transistor P2 is of a second conductivity type opposite the first conductivity type, (p-type) paragraphs 58, 141, and 142, the first, second, and fifth gates are electrically connected, (by PL2) paragraph 143, and [AltContent: textbox (1st )] PNG media_image1.png 278 662 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (2nd )][AltContent: textbox (5th )][AltContent: textbox (3rd )][AltContent: textbox (4th )] the fifth active region is disposed between the second and third active regions. In reference to claim 8, Nii discloses a non-functional gate, PL1, configured to engage an end portion of the second active region, wherein the non-functional gate and the sixth gate, PL1 of N5, are aligned on a straight line, Figure 15. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 9, and 10 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. Claim 2 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first, second, and fifth gates are aligned on a straight line with the second gate between the first and fifth gates; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 3 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the third, fourth, and sixth gates are aligned on a straight line with the third gate between the fourth and sixth gates; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 4 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein one of the S/D regions of the first transistor, one of the S/D regions of the second transistor, the third gate, and the fourth gate are electrically connected; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 5 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein one of the S/D regions of the third transistor, one of the S/D regions of the fourth transistor, and the fifth gate are electrically connected; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 6 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first active region comprises a channel region and S/D regions of a seventh transistor, and the fourth active region comprises a channel region and S/D regions of an eighth transistor; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and would allowable in combination with the other recited limitation in the respective base claims. Claim 9 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein a conductive feature extending lengthwise along the second direction and electrically connected to one of the S/D regions of the second transistor, wherein the conductive feature extends across the fifth active region; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claim 10 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure wherein the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth transistors are of a first conductivity type, and the second and third transistors are of a second conductivity type opposite the first conductive type; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim. Claims 11-20 are allowed. In reference to claim 11, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to one skilled in the art, the instant invention regarding the gate stacks of the first, second, and fifth transistors, one of the S/D regions of the third transistor, and one of the S/D regions of the fourth transistor are electrically connected; in combination with the other recited limitations. Claims 12-16 depend on claim 11. In reference to claim 17, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to one skilled in the art, the instant invention regarding a first write port portion; a second write port portion; and a read port portion disposed between the first write port portion and the second write port portion; in combination with the other recited limitations. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R. JUNGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5717. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 CT. 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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. /BRYAN R JUNGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2023
Application Filed
May 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Jan 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12563821
Semiconductor Device and Fabricating Method Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563795
MULTILAYER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557661
PACKAGE STRUCTURE WITH ANTENNA ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550789
LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY APPARATUS AND MULTI-SCREEN DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543454
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
58%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 613 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