Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/806,844

MEMORY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 16, 2024
Examiner
KING, DANIEL JOHN
Art Unit
2827
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Renesas Electronics Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allow Rate
50 granted / 52 resolved
+28.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 52 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 30 August 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-139535 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes the priority document exchange failure status report mailed 30 January 2025. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR BULK INITIALIZATION OF A MEMORY DEVICE. A different title may be chosen, but a descriptive title is required. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: Page 4, lines 1-2: “For clarity of explanation, the following description and drawings are appropriately omitted and simplified.” The language “the following description and drawings are appropriately omitted” indicates that the description and drawings are not included. Page 5, line 20: “As shown in Fig. 6, the memory device 600 according to the embodiment includes an initialization control circuit (not shown), a Write/Read internal clock generation circuit 601…The initialization control circuit sends an initialization mode signal that transitions the memory device to the initialization mode.” It is unclear how FIG. 6 can include an initialization control circuit and send a signal if such initialization control circuit does not appear to be depicted in FIG. 6. Page 6, lines 8-10: “Also, the initialization control circuit sends 0 or 1 initialization data to write to the memory device 600.” The language “0 or 1 initialization data” is unclear; it must be specified if “0 or 1 initialization data” is referring to binary bits or is intended to have some other meaning. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 1 sets forth “a selection circuit configured to simultaneously selects a plurality of word lines and a plurality of bit lines”. This language is unclear. For purposes of compact prosecution, this is being interpreted as “a selection circuit configured to simultaneously [[selects]] select a plurality of word lines and a plurality of bit lines”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-6 are objected to as dependent upon claim 1. Claim 1 sets forth “the True side or Bar side of a bit line”. The terms True and Bar are capitalized but do not appear to be proper nouns. Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 2-6 are objected to as dependent upon claim 1. Claim 4 sets forth “the High level potential”. The term “High” is capitalized but does not appear to be a proper noun. Appropriate clarification is required. 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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the True side of Bar side of a bit line" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1. Claim 1 sets forth “a bit line”, “a plurality of bit lines”, and “bit lines”. This language is unclear. It is unclear whether “a bit line” is belonging to “a plurality of bit lines” and/or “bit lines”, and/or whether “a plurality of bit lines” and “bit lines” is referring to the same one or more “bit lines”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to implement such invention due to uncertainty about how to implement the one or more “bit lines” in the instant invention. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 sets forth, in part, “and to write the initialization data simultaneously into a memory cell connected to the selected word lines and bit lines.” The use of the term “simultaneously” is unclear in this context. Although the word “simultaneously” would be broadly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as events occurring at the same time, it is unclear what event the writing of initialization data is occurring at the same time as. Further, if the claim is intending to set forth that the writing of initialization data is occurring simultaneously with “a selection circuit configured to simultaneously selects a plurality of word lines and a plurality of bit lines”, this requires further written description in order to be implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art, because such a claim limitation is not clear. Appropriate clarification is required. Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1. The following relevant prior art not relied upon is made of record: US 6021077 A (Nakaoka) US 6724686 B2 (Ooishi) Further search and consideration is required upon resolution of indefiniteness issues. In particular, the claim limitation “and a selection circuit configured to simultaneously selects a plurality of word lines and a plurality of bit lines, and to write the initialization data simultaneously into a memory cell connected to the selected word lines and bit lines” is indefinite and is not clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prior art cannot be sufficiently applied. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KING whose telephone number is (703)756-1232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at (571) 272-1852. 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. /DANIEL JOHN KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2827 /AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597451
READ CIRCUIT AND MEMORY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580030
DYNAMIC BIT LINE VOLTAGE DURING PROGRAM VERIFY TO PROVIDE MORE THRESHOLD VOLTAGE BUDGET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567448
STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562232
NON-VOLATILE MEMORY WITH CONCURRENT PROGRAMMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12542164
MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING MULTI-BIT CELL AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
96%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+5.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 52 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