DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed February 6, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “patterned metallization layers spaced apart by dielectric layers” recited on lines 9-10 of the amended claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim, because Applicants do not show any detailed structures of the “patterned metallization layers” and “dielectric layers”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18, 21 and 22 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether “a patterned metallization layer formed during the BEOL processing” recited on lines 15-16 refers to one of the “patterned metallization layers” recited on lines 9-10, because (a) otherwise the BEOL processing may produce other elements that are not claimed in claim 1, (b) in this case, the duration of “the BEOL processing” recited on line 24 would not be limited to the duration for the process steps recited in claim 1, and (c) however, Applicants claim that “the patterned metallization layers electrically interconnect the circuit components of the IC” on lines 10-12, which appears to suggest that “a patterned metallization layer” is not one of “the patterned metallization layers electrically interconnect the circuit components of the IC” sine the victim antenna comprising the region of the patterned metallization layer does not exactly “interconnect the circuit components of the IC” as shown in Fig. 2 of current application where the victim antenna 34 is directly coupled only to an underlying resistive element.
(2) Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear how the “static electrical charge” recited in the preamble is generated, and it is not clear whether one of the process steps recited in the claim bodies of claims 1, 12 and 18 generates the “static electrical charge”, or an unspecified process step or unspecified process steps generate(s) the “static electrical charge”, because (a) depending on how the “static electrical charge” is generated, the location and amount of the “static electrical charge” are likely to vary, which would affect how the “static electrical charge” is detected later on, (b) however, Applicants do not specifically claim how the “static electrical charge” is generated in the first place when the claimed invention is directed to detecting the “static electrical charge”, and (c) it is not clear whether Applicants claim that there is only one way to generate the “static electrical charge”, or all the static electrical charges generated by different and various manufacturing steps result in the same location and the same amount, and thus the same detection method thereof, which do not appear to be the case in reality.
(3) Regarding claims 1 and 12, it is not clear how the capacitances Cv and Ca recited in claims 1 and 12 can be unambiguously defined and measured, because (a) the capacitance of the victim isolation well Cv and the capacitance of the aggressor isolation well Ca should be measured between two surfaces of the victim isolation well and two surfaces of the aggressor isolation well, (b) however, as recited on lines 4-7 of claim 1 and on lines 5-8 of claim 12, the victim isolation well and the aggressor isolation well are not formed of homogenous and isotropic materials consisting of a single material composition since the victim and aggressor isolation well each comprises other circuit elements recited in claim 1, and the FET in claim 12, hindering one of ordinary skill in the art from measuring the claimed capacitances unambiguously, (c) furthermore, there are numerous ways to measure the claimed capacitances of the victim and aggressor isolation well, and the illustrations below show only two of many ways to measure the claimed capacitances, where the capacitance of the aggressor isolation well measured in the first illustration below would be distinct from the capacitance of the aggressor isolation well measured in the second illustration below, (d) Applicants do not simply claim the capacitances Cv and Ca per se, but rather claim a victim RC time constant on line 17 of claim 1 and on line 14 of claim 12, and first RC time constant or an aggressor RC time constant on line 22 of claim 1 and on line 17 of claim 12, which are different from each other, and (e) therefore, depending on how the capacitances Cv and Ca are defined, even a single method may or may not read on claims 1 and 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(4) Also regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear what the victim isolation well recited on line 6 of claim 1, and on line 5 of claims 12 and 18 is constituted of, and what the aggressor isolation well recited on lines 7-8 of claim 1, and on line 8 of claim 12 and 18 is constituted of, because (a) as discussed above, Applicants do not simply claim a victim isolation well and an aggressor isolation well per se, but rather claim associated RC time constants, (b) in this case, it is not clear whether the victim isolation well is the PW 24 shown in Fig. 4 of current application, or the composite structure of the PW 24, P, N and N shown in Fig. 4 of current application, (c) likewise, it is not clear whether the aggressor isolation well is the NW 22 shown in Fig. 4 of current application, or the composite structure of the NW 22, N, N and P shown in Fig. 4 of current application, and (d) if the claimed capacitances are measured solely from the PW 24 or the NW 22, it is not clear how one can isolate the effects of the P/N/N regions in the PW 24 or the N/N/P regions in the NW 22 to unambiguously measure the capacitances of the victim and aggressor isolation well; and if the claimed capacitances are measured from the composite regions, it is not clear whether one of the probes for measurement of the capacitances would be placed on the PW/NW, or one of the P/N/N or N/N/P regions since, depending on where the probe is placed, the measurement values of the capacitances would be different from each other.
(5) Further regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear what the limitation “a signal path metal connection that electrically connects the aggressor isolation well with the victim isolation well via the gate oxide (emphases added)” recited on lines 13-15 of claim 1, and the limitation “a signal path metal connection that electrically connects the aggressor isolation well with the victim isolation well via the gate oxide of the FET (emphases added)” recited on lines 9-11 of claims 12 and 18 refer to, because (a) the limitations cited above do not appear to make sense since it is not clear whether “a signal path metal connection” has anything to do with “the gate oxide”, (b) it is not clear how the gate oxide, which should be an electrical insulator since otherwise the FET would not function as a transistor, has anything to do with the signal path metal connection, and (c) it is not clear whether the gate oxide is electrically connected to the aggressor isolation well and the victim isolation well even though it is an electrical insulator, which does not appear to make sense, either.
(6) Further regarding claims 1 and 12, it is not clear how the resistance Rv recited on line 16 of claim 1 and on line 12 of claim 12, and the resistance Ra recited on lines 20-21 of claim 1 and on line 15 of claim 12 are defined and measured, because (a) the victim antenna resistance Rv and the aggressor antenna resistance Ra have numerous values since the victim and aggressor antenna have complex shapes and structures, (b) for example, the two aggressor antenna resistances Ra measured between the two arrows illustrated below are different from each other, and (c) as related to the discussions above with regard to the capacitances, Applicants do not claim the aggressor and victim antenna resistances per se, but rather claim associated RC time constants, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art should be able to define and determine the aggressor and victim antenna resistances unambiguously to arrive at unambiguous values of the RC time constants.
PNG
media_image3.png
498
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(7) Still further regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear whether the limitation “during the BEOL processing, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 24-27 of claim 1, the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide of the FET” recited on lines 22-25 of claim 12, and the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 16-19 of claim 18 suggest that the static electrical charge is formed during the manufacturing process of the aggressor isolation well since otherwise the static electrical charge would not have been accumulated in the aggressor isolation well in the first place; if so, it is not clear why the static electrical charge has accumulated in the aggressor isolation well, but not in the victim isolation well, since the aggressor isolation well 22 and the victim isolation well 24 shown in Fig. 4 of current application appear substantially identical to each other except for the conductivity types.
(8) Still further regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear what the limitation “during the BEOL processing, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 24-27 of claim 1, the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide of the FET” recited on lines 22-25 of claim 12, and the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 16-19 of claim 18 suggest, because (a) it is not clear how the static electrical charge can be moved since the static electrical charge should be static to begin with, especially when Applicants claim that the static electrical charge has been accumulated in the aggressor isolation well, but not in the victim isolation well, (b) Applicants do not specifically claim how the static electrical charge can be forced to migrate from their original static locations, (c) it is not clear how “a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well” can be measured by measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide since the gate oxide has nothing to do with the aggressor and victim isolation well, (d) as discussed above, Applicants did not originally disclose that the static electrical charge has been accumulated in the aggressor isolation well in the first place, and (e) it is not clear why the step of “measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” has anything to do with the claimed discharge of static electrical charge, and it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the discharge of the static electrical charge is measured in real time as a discharge takes place.
(9) Still further regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, it is not clear what the limitation “during the BEOL processing, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 24-27 of claim 1, the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide of the FET” recited on lines 22-25 of claim 12, and the limitation “during the fabricating, measuring a discharge of static electrical charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well via the signal path metal connection, wherein the measuring comprises measuring an electrical parameter of the gate oxide” recited on lines 16-19 of claim 18 suggest, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants’ aggressor isolation well 22 shown in Fig. 4 of current application is an n-type well NW, and therefore, Applicants’ aggressor isolation well 22 should already contain electrons originated from donors, which cannot be distinguished from the static electrical charge, and even if the static electrical charge somehow moves toward the aggressor isolation well from an unspecified source during a manufacturing process, the static electrical charge would be repelled by the electrons that are already contained in the aggressor isolation well that is an n-type well NW, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed measuring step really involves a real time detection of the static electrical charge that is not distinct from the electrons that are already contained in the aggressor isolation well, or the claimed measuring step is based on Applicants’ hypothesis that only the static electrical charge can be discharged from the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well, while no other electrical charges can move from the aggressor isolation well to the victim isolation well.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, claims 13-17 depend on claim 12, and claims 21 and 22 depend on claim 18, and therefore, claims 2-11, 13-17, 21 and 22 are also indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 on pages 13-14 are not persuasive, because (a) as the Examiner already stated, the static electrical charge or process charge may be different depending on when and how the static electrical charge or process charge is created, (b) as currently presented, it appears that the claimed method is directed to measuring a discharge of static electrical charge or process charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well regardless when and how the static electrical charge or process charge was created, (c) any electrical charges, not to mention static electrical charges or process charges, are not distinguishable, and therefore, it is not clear whether one can distinguish the claimed static electrical charge from other types of static charges, especially when Applicants do not specifically claim when and how the static electrical charge is created, what the static electrical charge is, and therefore, the static electrical charge can be electrons, protons or particles having extra electrons, i.e. ionized particles, (d) if arguendo the static electrical charge is an electron, it is not clear whether Applicants could distinguish the static electrical charge of an electron created during the BEOL process and the static electrical charge disposed in the aggressor isolation well that was not created by the BEOL process, (e) if arguendo the static electrical charge is a proton, it is not clear how the proton can be accumulated in the aggressor isolation well without becoming neutralized, (f) as shown in Fig. 2 of current application, the aggressor isolation well NBL_a is separated from the victim isolation well NBL_v by the gate oxide 26, and (g) therefore, it is not clear how the claimed static electric charge accumulated in the aggressor isolation well NBL_a can be discharged into the victim isolation well NBL_v without any mechanism to push the claimed static electric charge, especially “during the BEOL processing” or “during the fabricating”, since (i) the unclaimed and unspecified mechanism to push the static electrical charge into the victim isolation well NBL_v would disrupt the BEOL processing or fabricating step, and (ii) the unclaimed and unspecified mechanism may require additional electrodes to apply bias to the static electrical charge, which would imply that one needs to form additional electrodes during the BEOL processing or fabricating step that may not be needed once the IC is completed.
The remainder of Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS filed February 6, 2026 are based on incorporating claim limitations from the specification, and MPEP 2111.01 stipulates that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. Again, the most important issue with regard to claims 1-18, 21 and 22 is that Applicants did not originally disclose and do not claim what the “static electrical charge” is, how it is created, how it can be discharged between two isolation wells when the static electrical charge should pass through the gate oxide 26 shown in Fig. 2 of current application without Applicants’ originally disclosing and specifically claiming the mechanism by which the discharge of the unspecified static electrical charge is carried out; for example, a discharge of an electron would be different from a discharge of a proton, which is also different from a discharge of a charged ion. Finally, Applicants did not originally disclose, and do not claim how a resistance and a capacitance of an anisotropic aggressor well and victim well are defined, and how they are measured to come up with the claimed time constants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al., “P-minus Substrate Guard Ring Modeling for the Purpose of Noise Isolation in CMOS Substrates,” IEEE (2015).
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 April 3, 2026