Ferroelectric memory and methods of forming the same

All actions (5)

Notice of AllowanceLatest

May 24, 2017

Notice of Allowance — claims 1-7 and 9-30 allowed

The applicant must pay the issue fee within three months (extendable to four months with a petition and fee) to complete the patent grant. Any desired claim amendments or corrections must be filed before the issue fee is paid. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Allowable subject matter (1)

allowableclaims 1-7, 9-30

Procedural framework (4)

MPEP§ 804.01·§ 821.04(B)·§ 821.04(a)

Case lawIn Re Ziegler

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Dec 19, 2016 · §112

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — claim 8 rejected under §112(a) written description; claims 1-7, 10-12, 19, 22-25 allowable

The applicant typically has three months to respond, extendable to six. Common approaches include amending claim 8 to bring it in line with what's described in the specification, canceling claim 8 if it's not essential, or arguing that the specification does support the claim as written. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (1)

§ 112(a)Written descriptionclaims 8
Claim 8 is 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.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Dec 19, 2016
Examiner theory
The claim 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 recites that the second conductive contact is coupled to the top electrode and to the second source/drain region. However, as recited in claim 1, the second conductive contact is connected to the second electrode of the second cell and to an electrode of a third cell. The second conductive contact is also coupled to a source/drain region of the second cell, but not to the second source/drain region of the ferroelectric capacitor recited in claim 1. The following is a quotation of

Allowable subject matter (2)

Final Office Action

Mar 30, 2016 · §102, §103

Final Office Action — all claims rejected under §102 anticipation or §103 obviousness over two Ozaki patents

Because this is a Final Office Action, the applicant typically has three months (extendable to six) to respond. Common options include filing arguments and amendments if a clear distinction from Ozaki can be shown, requesting an examiner interview to narrow the issues, or filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if more substantive changes are needed. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (4)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki (US 2005/0121709).
Final Office Action mailed Mar 30, 2016
§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 10-11
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki (US 2008/0079046).
Final Office Action mailed Mar 30, 2016
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 3, 5
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (US 2005/0121709).

Non-Final Office Action

Oct 15, 2015 · §102, §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action — claims 1-8, 10-12, 19, and 22-25 rejected under §102 and §103

The applicant has three months from the mailing date (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. A response typically involves amending claims to distinguish them from Ozaki's disclosures, arguing that Ozaki doesn't teach certain claim elements, or correcting the dependent-claim issues. An examiner interview is often useful to clarify which features might overcome the prior art. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (4)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12, 19
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki (US 2005/0121709).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct 15, 2015
§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 10-11
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki (US 2008/0079046).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct 15, 2015
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 3, 5
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (US 2005/0121709).

Restriction Requirement

Jul 21, 2015

Restriction Requirement — examiner requires election among invention groups before substantive examination

The applicant must respond within the statutory period (typically 3 months, extendable) by electing one invention group for examination. The response should identify which group is elected and may include a traverse (argument against the restriction) if the applicant believes the inventions are not distinct. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Procedural framework (1)

MPEP§ 806.05(f)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20050121709	patent publication	Ozaki	View ↗
US20080079046	patent publication	Ozaki	View ↗

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20050121709	patent publication	Ozaki	View ↗
US20080079046	patent publication	Ozaki	View ↗

The latest action

Claim status

Open 14/263,610 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (5)

Notice of AllowanceLatest

Allowable subject matter (1)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (1)

Allowable subject matter (2)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (4)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (4)

Restriction Requirement

Prior art consulted (2)

Prior art consulted (2)