DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment (of RCE) filed August 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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)(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, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by M Siddiqui et al. (US 12,243,585).
Regarding independent claim 1, M Siddiqui et al. disclose a memory device (see e.g., FIGS. 1B and FIG. 2, and EXMINER’S MARKUP below), comprising:
a memory array (FIG. 1B: 108);
an input/output (IO) circuitry (see FIG. 1B), configured to access the memory array, wherein the IO circuit comprises:
a write driver (152-0/152-0B), configured to receive input data to drive bit lines (DL/DL0) of the memory array; and
a negative voltage provider (FIG. 2: 210 and 126), configured to generate to generate a negative voltage (FIGS. 1B and 2: VSS_ASSIST) to the write driver (FIG. 1B: 152, i.e., VSS_ASSIST through 150 to 152); and
a control circuit (see FIGS. 1B and 2), comprising:
a negative-bit-line (NBL) timing control circuit, configured to generate an NBL enable signal to selectively enable (FIG. 2: GWA_CLK after 212) the negative voltage provider (210 and 126);
wherein the memory device is supplied by a first supply voltage (VDDP) and a second supply voltage (VDD_M), and a voltage level of the second supply voltage is higher than a voltage level of the first supply voltage (see FIG. 2: 212); and the negative voltage provider and the NBL timing control circuit are supplied by the second supply voltage (VDD_M).
wherein the negative voltage provider (FIG. 2: 210, 126 and 128) comprises at least one inverter (210-126) supplied by the second supply voltage, a capacitor (128), and at least one transistor (210-126), and the NB enable signal passes through the at least one inverter (210-126) and the capacitor (128) to control the at least one transistor to selectively generate the negative voltage (see FIG. 2 and accompanying disclosure).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, M Siddiqui et al. disclose the control circuit is supplied by both the first supply voltage and the second supply voltage (see e.g., FIGS. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, M Siddiqui et al. disclose the memory device is a dual-rail static random access memory (SRAM) circuitry (see FIG. 1B: 108).
PNG
media_image1.png
866
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
845
1048
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M Siddiqui et al. (US 12,243,585).
Regarding claim 2, M Siddiqui et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
M Siddiqui et al. do not explicitly disclose when the memory array operates in a normal mode, the first supply voltage has a normal voltage level; and when the memory operates in a power saving mode, the first supply voltage has a low voltage level different from the normal voltage level; and the second supply voltage has the same voltage level regardless whether the memory device operates in the normal mode or the power saving mode.
However, the claimed limitations of a normal operation mode and a power saving mode having different supply powers is a well-known technology in a memory device and operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize static random access memory used as configuration random access memory in power saving because these conventional technology are well established in the art of the memory devices.
Regarding claim 3, M Siddiqui et al. teach the limitations of claim 1.
M Siddiqui et al. do not explicitly disclose the IO circuitry further comprises a sense amplifier, an input latch and an output driver, and at least one of the write driver, the sense amplifier, the input larch and the output driver is supplied by the first supply voltage.
However, the claimed limitations of a SA, input data latch and an output driver in a low power domain is a well-known technology in a memory device and operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize static random access memory used as configuration random access memory power saving peripheral circuitry because these conventional technology are well established in the art of the memory devices.
Regarding claim 5, M Siddiqui et al. teach the limitations of claim 4.
M Siddiqui et al. further teach a pre-driver and a post-driver, the pre-driver is supplied by the second supply voltage, and the post-driver is supplied by the first supply voltage (see e.g., FIGS. 1B and 2).
Further, pre and post driver circuitry having multi-power is a well-known technology in a memory device and operations.
For support, of the above asserted facts, see for example, Cheng et al. (US 2019/0115056), FIG. 4, i.e., write driver circuit comprising 1130 in high-voltage VDDM power domain (claimed the second power voltage) and 1132 in low-voltage VDD power domain (claimed the first power voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of Cheng et al. to the teaching of M Siddiqui et al. such that a memory, as taught by M Siddiqui et al., utilizes dual-rail driver circuitry in a multi-power domain, as taught by Cheng et al., for the purpose of enhancing memory write operation, and further these conventional technology are well established in the art of the memory devices.
Regarding claims 6-8, M Siddiqui et al. teach the limitations of claim 5.
M Siddiqui et al. further teach the pre-driver receives a clock signal to generate a processed signal, and the post-driver receives the processed signal to generate an output clock signal serving as the global IO signal to the IO circuitry; a signal generator supplied by the first supply voltage, configured to generate a first clock signal; and a level shift circuit, configured to receive the first clock signal to generate the clock signal, wherein a voltage level of the clock signal is higher than a voltage level of the first clock signal; and each of the pre-driver and the post-driver comprises an inverter (FIGS. 2, 4-5 and 7, and accompanying disclosure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendment filed 08/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 102 and 103, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. See the art rejection above for more details.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG IL CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:30AM-5PM; Every other F, 7:30AM-4PM 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, Alexander G Sofocleous can be reached on 571-272-0635. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNG IL CHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
