Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/190,939

ESD PROTECTION CIRCUIT AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 27, 2023
Examiner
FREY, KIMBERLY NEWMAN
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ablic Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
48%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
10 granted / 15 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -19% lift
Without
With
+-19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
68
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 15 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.; US 2019/0379204 A1; 01/2019 in view of Song et al.; US 2021/0175226 A1; 08/2020 and Takasu; US 2009/0050967 A1; 08/2008 Claim 1: Lee discloses an ESD protection circuit, comprising: an off transistor, which comprises: a semiconductor substrate ( Fig. 3 #200 ) of a first conductivity type ( Fig. 3 P-sub ); a well region of a second conductivity type ( Fig. 3 #210a n-well ), formed in an upper portion of the semiconductor substrate ( as shown in Fig. 3 ); a drain region of the first conductivity type ( Fig. 3 #235a ), formed in an upper portion of the well region ( as shown in Fig. 3 ) and having an impurity concentration higher than an impurity concentration of the well region ( Fig. 3 #235a is shown as p+ ); a pair of source regions ( Fig. 3 #235b and #235d ) of the first conductivity type ( Fig. 3 #235b and #235d are P+ ), formed spaced apart ( as shown in Fig. 3 ) on both sides of the drain region ( Fig 3 #235a ) in the upper portion of the well region ( as shown in Fig. 2 ) and having an impurity concentration higher than the impurity concentration of the well region ( Fig. 3 #235b is P+ ); a gate insulating film ( Fig. 3 #225 ) formed on a surface of the semiconductor substrate ( Fig. 3 #200 ) between the drain region ( Fig. 3 #235a ) and each of the pair of the source regions ( Fig. 3 #235b and #235d ); a gate electrode ( Fig. 3 #230a ) formed on a surface of the gate insulating film (as shown in Fig. 3 ). Lee does not appear to disclose a high-concentration region of the second conductivity type, formed in the upper portion of the well region to be in contact with at least the drain region near a corner portion of a channel region and having an impurity concentration higher than the impurity concentration of the well region; a peripheral wall portion, formed around the drain region, the pair of source regions, and the gate electrode to separate a region for forming the off transistor; and an insulating film, formed between an inner circumference of the peripheral wall portion and the drain region, and formed adjacent to an outer circumference of the peripheral wall portion. However, Song discloses, a high-concentration region of the second conductivity type ( Fig. 1 #123 ), formed in the upper portion of the well region ( Fig. 1 second N-well region #122 ) to be in contact with at least the drain region ( Fig. 1 D1 ) near a corner portion of a channel region ( area under Fig. 1 gate dielectric layer #152 ) and having an impurity concentration higher than the impurity concentration of the well region ( [0032] the doping concentration of the first impurity region #123 may be greater than the doping concentration of the second N-well region #122 ). Song does not appear to disclose a peripheral wall portion, formed around the drain region, the pair of source regions, and the gate electrode to separate a region for forming the off transistor; and an insulating film, formed between an inner circumference of the peripheral wall portion and the drain region, and formed adjacent to an outer circumference of the peripheral wall portion. However, Takasu teaches a peripheral wall portion ( Fig. 1 #504 ), formed around the drain region ( Fig. 1 #503 ), the pair of source regions ( Fig. 1 #501), and the gate electrode ( Fig. 1 #502 ) to separate a region for forming the off transistor ( as shown in Fig. 1 ); and an insulating film ( [0020] A shallow trench structure is used for insulation from other elements, and a perimeter of the transistor is surrounded by a shallow trench isolation region #504 ), formed between an inner circumference of the peripheral wall portion and the drain region, and formed adjacent to an outer circumference of the peripheral wall portion ( a Shallow Trench Isolation (STI) includes an insulating film as its primary component). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Takasu with Song and Lee to implement a peripheral wall portion, formed around the drain region, the pair of source regions, and the gate electrode to separate a region for forming the off transistor; and an insulating film, formed between an inner circumference of the peripheral wall portion and the drain region, and formed adjacent to an outer circumference of the peripheral wall portion because these components provide isolation, protection, and controlled current flow during an electrostatic discharge event. Claim 3: Lee, Song, and Takasu disclose the ESD protection circuit according to claim 1 ( as discussed above). Neither Lee nor Takasu appear to disclose the high-concentration region is formed in an entire area of the upper portion of the well region. However, Song teaches the high-concentration region ( Fig. 1 #123) is formed in an entire area of the upper portion of the well region ( Fig. 1 #122 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Song with Lee and Takasu to implement the high-concentration region is formed in an entire area of the upper portion of the well region because this is a key design technique used to manage the trigger voltage, holding voltage, and overall robustness of the ESD device. Claim 2 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.; US 2019/0379204 A1; 01/2019 in view of Song et al.; US 2021/0175226 A1; 08/2020 and Takasu; US 2009/0050967 A1; 08/2008 as it relates to claim 1 and further in view of Risaki; US 2017/0221878 A1; 07/2015 Claim 2: Lee, Song, and Takasu disclose the ESD protection circuit according to claim 1 (as discussed above). Neither Lee, Song, nor Takasu appear to disclose the high-concentration region is formed in an entire area of the channel. However, Risaki teaches the high-concentration region is formed in an entire area of the channel ( Fig. 3 P+ region #22 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Risaki with Song, Lee, and Takasu to implement the high-concentration region is formed in an entire area of the channel because this approach promotes uniform current distribution. Response to Amendment/Argument Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4 - 8 of the remarks, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Takasu. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIMBERLY N FREY whose telephone number is (571)272-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5 pm. 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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. /K.N.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578441
SENSING DEVICE AND DISTANCE MEASURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575091
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12538685
PIXEL ARRANGEMENT STRUCTURE, DISPLAY PANEL, DISPLAY APPARATUS AND MASK GROUP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12525545
HBI DIE FIDUCIAL ARCHITECTURE WITH CANTILEVER FIDUCIALS FOR SMALLER DIE SIZE AND BETTER YIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 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
67%
Grant Probability
48%
With Interview (-19.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 15 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