Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/043,906

MEMORY CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF OPERATING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Feb 03, 2025
Priority
Feb 02, 2022 — provisional 63/267,453 +1 more
Examiner
HIDALGO, FERNANDO N
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allowance Rate
1145 granted / 1226 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1237
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1226 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Examiner’s Note The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS." MPEP 2123 (I): “PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.” Additionally, in an effort to provide a timely Office response to amendments the Applicant may file in response to this Office Action, it is respectfully requested that, on accompanying remarks/arguments papers, every effort be made to provide specific (page No., paragraph No., FIG. No., etc.) Specification/Drawings support for such amendments, particularly claim amendments. 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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim(s) 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12217792. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obviated by the patented claims. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over (in a non-statutory double patent rejection) the earlier claim. In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Bercl, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). Ely Lilly and Co. v Bar Laboratories, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on petition for rehearing en banc (decided: May 30, 2001).The instant claims are obviated by the patented claims; the patent and the application claim obvious common subject matter: a memory circuit and/or method thereof, comprising, in brief and saliently: memory cells; a local input output (LIO) circuit coupled to a global bit line and the set of memory cells, the LIO circuit comprising: a driver circuit configured to generate a global bit line signal in response to at least a first signal or an inverted first signal; a booster circuit coupled to the driver circuit and the global bit line, and configured to adjust the global bit line signal in response to a delayed global bit line signal, wherein the booster circuit comprises: a first inverter configured to generate a second signal in response to the global bit line signal, the first inverter including a first input terminal coupled to the global bit line, and a first output terminal; a delay circuit coupled to the first output terminal of the first inverter, and configured to generate a delayed second signal in response to the second signal; and a second inverter configured to generate a third signal in response to the delayed second signal, the second inverter including a second input terminal and a second output terminal, the second input terminal being coupled to an output terminal of the delay circuit, the third signal corresponds to the delayed global bit line signal. Or, similar subject matter thereof; mutatis mutandis. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200005837, US 10755790, US 8164974, DE 102019116890 A1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO N HIDALGO whose telephone number is (571)270-3306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-7:30 ET. 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 5712721852. 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. FERNANDO N. HIDALGO Primary Examiner Art Unit 2827 /Fernando Hidalgo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12706129
SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS, MEMORY, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12700455
3D CELL AND ARRAY STRUCTURES
2y 6m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12700463
MEMORY DEVICE, MEMORY SYSTEM, AND OPERATING METHOD OF MEMORY DEVICE
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12700444
PUMPING VOLTAGE GENERATING CIRCUIT IN WHICH THE TOTAL PUMPING FORCE IS CONTROLLED IN RESPONSE TO THE SELF-REFRESH CHARGE CONSUMPTION
1y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12694921
Dynamic Memory Operations
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+1.3%)
1y 8m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1226 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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