Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/037,460

NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DRIVING SAME

Final Rejection §112§Other
Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Examiner
ESCALANTE, OVIDIO
Art Unit
3992
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
Kioxia Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 205 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
252
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §Other
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission filed on February 18, 2026. As set forth therein, Claim 15 is amended and claims 15-24 remain pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Reissue Applications For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 8,218,358 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Response to Arguments Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on February 18, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of RE45840, RE46785, RE48191, RE49152 and RE50330 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph The Applicant states that the ordinary meaning of “penetrate” is defined as “to pierce or pass into or through” and “pierce” is defined as “to penetrate into or run through (something)…”. The Applicant explains that as shown in Figures 1-3, pillar 21 passes into and passed through (pierces/penetrates) stacked body ML having a plurality of electrode films 14 (CG) and a plurality of insulating films 15. The Examiner notes that the issue was not with respect to the definition of ‘penetrate’ and ‘pierce’ but rather whether the specification discloses a pillar piercing/penetrating. The Examiner referenced citations in which the specification discloses that the ‘through-hole’ pierces and did not appear to be specific as to whether the pillar is disclosed to “pierce”. The Examiner found that the ‘358 patent specification discloses both the pillar and the through-hole as two distinct entities. The Examiner however, acknowledges the Applicant’s citations set forth in col. 6, lines 24-31 and col. 17, lines 32-34 of the specification which discloses a teaching in which the pillar itself will pierce through the common electrodes. Thus, in reconsideration of the Applicant’s arguments as well as the citations and related teachings, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Therefore, the 112 first rejection to claim 15 will be withdrawn. The Examiner notes however, that the previous office action also set forth a 112 1st paragraph rejection with respect to claims 17 and 19 with respect to ‘dry-etching’. The Applicant has not sufficiently responded to this rejection. As set forth in the 112 Rejection, the ’358 patent discloses that the through-holes were made by dry etching, however it was not clear whether the pillar was made by dry etching since the specification discloses that the pillar was made for example of polysilicon. Therefore, the rejection to claims 17 and 19 will be maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 17 and 19 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to claim 17, the claim recites ‘wherein the semiconductor pillar is made in plurality by collective dry etching.” The Examiner notes that the ‘358 patent discloses that the through-holes are made in the stacked body by dry etching (see col. 16, lines 44-46; col. 18, line 67-col. 19, line 3). The ‘358 patent does not provide any disclosure that the semiconductor pillar is made by “collective dry etching”. Indeed, the ‘358 patent discloses that the semiconductor pillar is formed with polysilicon which fills the interior of the through-hole. See col. 6, lines 2-12 The Examiner notes that the Applicant points to Figures 1 and 3 and col. 3, lines 39-55 and col., 18, lines 59 – col. 19, line 3. However, citations within the specification are directed to the through-hole, not the semiconductor pillar as claimed. Claim 19 recites a similar feature with respect to the semi-conductor pillar and dry etching and therefore, is likewise not supported by the specification. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is set forth above in the 112 first paragraph rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-16, 18 and 20-24 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not specifically disclose “a drive circuit supplying a potential to the electrode film, in an operation, the drive circuit supplying a potential to reduce a potential difference with the semiconductor pillar as the diameter of the semiconductor pillar decreases” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim as recited in claim 15. 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 Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9000. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Ovidio Escalante/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §Other
Feb 18, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §112, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent RE50803
DEVICES FOR ENHANCING TRANSMISSIONS OF STIMULI IN AUDITORY PROSTHESES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent RE50766
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent RE50738
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A BANDWIDTH EXTENDED SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent RE50739
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A BANDWIDTH EXTENDED SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent RE50740
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A BANDWIDTH EXTENDED SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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
73%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 205 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