Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/571,407

AUGMENTED MEMORY COMPUTING: A NEW PATHWAY FOR EFFICIENT AI COMPUTATIONS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
CHO, SUNG IL
Art Unit
2825
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
519 granted / 569 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 569 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the following communications: the Application filed December 18, 2023, and Response to election / restriction filed October 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions without traverse. Claim 10 is independent. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 10, 2024 and April 28, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 20, the examiner believes claim 20, which is identical to claim 16, is dependent on independent claim 17 rather than independent claim 10. The “The SRAM-bit cell of claim 17 wherein”, if substituted, would cure this deficiency. Appropriate correction is required. 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 of this title, 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 10-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 9,552,872). Regarding independent claim 10, Jung et al. teach a SRAM-bit cell (see e.g., FIG. 4) comprising a first transistor M1 (PG1), a second transistor M2 (PG2), a third transistor M3 (WR2), a fourth transistor M4 (RD2), a fifth transistor M5 (IN1, PMOS), a sixth transistor M6 (IN1, NMOS), a seventh transistor M7 (IN2, PMOS), and an eighth transistor M8 (IN2, NMOS), wherein a four transistor cross-coupled inverter component includes a first transistor inverter (IN1) and a second transistor inverter (IN2), the first transistor inverter including the fifth transistor M5 and the sixth transistor M6 (inverter logic comprises PMOS and NMOS) connected at a first node Vx (DS1) and the second transistor inverter including the seventh transistor M7 and the eighth transistor M8 (inverter logic comprises PMOS and NMOS) connected at a second node Vy (DS2); wherein the first transistor M1 (PG1) is a first access transistor in electrical communication with the gates of the seventh transistor M7 and the eighth transistor M8 which are connected together (see IN2), the first transistor M1 also being in electrical communication with a first bit line BL (WBLB); wherein the second transistor M2 (PG2) is a first additional transistor in electrical communication with the gates of transistor the fifth transistor M5 and the sixth transistor M6 which are connected together (see IN1), the gates of both the first transistor M1 and the second transistor M2 are in electrical communication with a wordline WL1 (WL1); and wherein the third transistor M3 (WR2) is a second access transistor M3 in electrical communication with the second transistor M2 (PG2) both of which are in electrical communication with the gate of the fourth transistor M4 (RD2) at a dynamic node Vz (LBL), the fourth transistor M4 (RD2) being in electrical communication with line SL (RWLB) and line BLR (RBL), the gate of the third transistor M3 (WR2) is in electrical communication with wordline WL2 (WWL), the third transistor M3 (WR2) is also in electrical communication with second bit line BLB (WBL). Jung's memory device 100 in Figure 4 includes a write operation pass gate and a read buffer transistor that are commonly connected to conventional six-transistor SRAM bit cells BC1 to BC4. During a memory operation, the memory cell that is activated includes a write operation pass gate and a read buffer transistor that are commonly connected to one of Jung's SRAM cells BC1 to BC4. In other words, one of cells BC1 and BC4 is coupled with the pass gate and buffer transistor to form the claimed SRAM bit cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilized the teaching of Jung et al. to combine conventional six-transistor SRAM cell, write pass gate, and read buffer transistor to form SRAM bit cells because these conventional technology are well established in the art of the memory devices. Regarding claim 11, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. further teach for the Normal mode of operation, both the wordlines WL1 and WL2 are activated, simultaneously (see FIGS. 5-10, read and write operation circuits and their timing diagrams, and accompanying disclosure). Regarding claim 12, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. further teach during Normal mode, the SL line and the BLR line are kept at about 0V to ensure no current flows through the fourth transistor M4, irrespective of a voltage at its gate (see FIGS. 5-10, read and write operation circuits and their timing diagrams, and accompanying disclosure). Regarding claim 13, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. further teach in augmented mode, two bits of data are simultaneously stored (see FIGS. 5-10, read and write operation circuits and their timing diagrams, and accompanying disclosure). Regarding claim 14, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. further teach SRAM-like static data is stored in the cross-coupled inverter as complementary voltages on nodes Vx and Vy, while the third transistor M3 and the fourth transistor M4 store a DRAM-like data on the dynamic node Vz (see FIGS. 5-10, read and write operation circuits and their timing diagrams, and accompanying disclosure). Regarding claim 15, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. do not explicitly disclose a differential sense amplifier for SRAM in electrical communication with the first bit line BL and the second bit line BLB. However, Jung’s data out to bit line (claimed first bit line BL) and complimentary bit line (claimed second bit line BLB), and a differential sense amplifier in a read operation is a well-known technology for a type of memory (e.g., SRAM) for its purpose. 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 reading with diff-SA circuits because these conventional technology are well established in the art of the memory devices. Regarding claim 16, Jung et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Jung et al. further teach all transistors are CMOS transistors (FIGS. 4-10, i.e., PMOS and NMOS). Further, dependent claims 11-14 claims functions of the apparatus independent claim 10, and are rejected under USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., figures 4-10, which is identical to instance applicant’s figure 1 to which all apparatus claims are supported. The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Because Tseng’s apparatus is substantially identical to applicant’s claimed device, the claimed functions are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I). This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device does not possess the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); MPEP 2112.01(I) (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). It appears applicant describes their invention as a method of operating a NAND flash memory. Although a method of operating an old device may be patentable, a novel method of operating does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating a Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art.”). Conclusion 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 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 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. /SUNG IL CHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580013
MEMORY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580009
COMPUTE-IN-MEMORY CIRCUIT BASED ON CHARGE REDISTRIBUTION, AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567466
NONVOLATILE MEMORY DEVICES AND METHODS OF OPERATING THE NONVOLATILE MEMORY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562202
MEMORY DEVICE SUPPLYING CURRENT TO FIRST MEMORY CELL BASED ON A FIRST CURRENT AND A SECOND CURRENT FLOWING IN SECOND MEMORY CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550629
SELF-ALIGNED, SYMMETRIC PHASE CHANGE MEMORY ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 569 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