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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/09/2023, 04/08/2025, and 09/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 07/09/2026, in which: claims 14 and 16 are amended; claims 8-10 are cancelled; new claims 21-23 are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-7 and 11-23 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species B1 (claims 1-7 and 11-23) in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026, to which applicant canceled the non-elected claims.
During a telephone conversation with applicant on 09/15/2026, examiner noted applicant only elected one species instead of one species per each of the following groups as noted in the restriction requirement, to which applicant further elected Species A3 on top of already elected Species B1 (claims 1-7 and 11-23). Examiner notes the error in the restriction requirement with regards to selecting a species from Group C as well, as those species are rather cross-sections of figure 2C drawn to Species B3. Therefore, Group C is withdrawn from the restriction requirement.
Claims 12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant indicates claims 12 and 17-23 are part of the elected species, however:
Claim 12 includes the limitation “the first and second alpha active regions are substantially coaxially aligned” which is not reflected in the elected species B1.
Claim 17 includes the limitation “relative to the second direction, the one or more M(i+1) segments are between (A) the first and second alpha active regions and (B) the first and second beta active regions”, which corresponds to Species B3 (figure 2C).
Claim 18 includes the limitation “a first end of at least one of the one or more M(i+1) segments overlaps the first beta active region and the second alpha active region; and a second end of at least one of the one or more M(i+1) segments overlaps at least the first end correspondingly of the second beta active region and the third alpha active region”, which also corresponds to Species B3, and claims 19-20 are dependent on claim 18.
Claim 21 includes the limitations “including first to fourth alpha regions” and “including first to fourth beta regions”, which is drawn to Species B5-B7 (figure 2E-2G), and claims 22-23 are dependent on claim 21.
Therefore, claims 12 and 17-23 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “nd1 (see fig. 1C)” has been used to designate both nd1 and nd2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: C(-), A(+), N, P, AR, and NW (see fig. 2A).
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. 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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the range "(≈9.0) ≤ SR ≤ (≈1.0)" should be written as "(≈1.0) ≤ SR ≤ (≈9.0)" or "(≈9.0) . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: the range "(≈. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first and second active regions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US Publication 20180109105).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lin teaches an electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection cell region (fig. 1) of a semiconductor device (paragraph 0003), the ESD protection cell region comprising:
a resistor-diode ladder (2) and a power clamp circuit coupled (12) in parallel (paragraph 0037) between a first power rail (VDD) having a first reference voltage and a second power rail (VSS) having a second reference voltage different than the first reference voltage (paragraph 0028); and
the resistor-diode ladder also being coupled between an input/output (1/0) pad (3, see also paragraph 0029) of the semiconductor device and core circuitry (11) of the semiconductor device.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Lin teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 1, wherein the resistor-diode ladder includes:
a first diode (212) coupled between a first node (see figure below) and the first power rail;
a first resistor (213) coupled between the first node and a second node (see figure below); and
a second diode (211) coupled between the second node and the first power rail;
the first node being coupled to the 1/0 pad (see figure below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
341
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the resistor-diode ladder being coupled between the 1/0 pad and the core circuitry (paragraph 0030).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Lin teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 2, wherein the resistor-diode ladder includes:
a third diode (fig. 1A, 221) coupled between the first node and the second power rail;
a fourth diode (222) coupled between the second node and the second power rail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Lin teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 3, wherein the resistor-diode ladder includes:
a second resistor (fig. 1A, 223).
Lin does not explicitly teach [a second resistor] coupled between the second node and a third node; a fifth diode coupled between the third node and the first power rail; and a sixth diode coupled between the third node and the second power rail, however, Lin discloses the number of the stacked diodes is not limited (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a fifth and sixth diode between a third node and the first/second power rails in order to decrease parasitic effect and lower signal loss (Lin paragraph 00038), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Gao et al. (US Publication 20220294213).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Lin teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 3.
Lin does not teach wherein: the first diode is larger than the second diode; the third diode is larger than the fourth diode; the first and second diodes have a size ratio SR; and the third and fourth diodes have the size ratio SR.
Gao teaches wherein:
the first diode (fig. 1, DP1) is larger than the second diode (DP2);
the third diode (DN1) is larger than the fourth diode (DN2);
the first and second diodes have a size ratio SR (fig. 1); and
the third and fourth diodes have the size ratio SR (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ESD protection cell region of Lin and the diode sizes of Gao to increase electrostatic protection capability at the cost of a smaller area (Gao paragraph 0045).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Gao further teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 5, wherein:
the size ratio SR is in a range (≈9.0) ≤ SR ≤ (≈1.0) (paragraph 0045, “the size of the MOSFET in the second power clamp circuit 250 may be ⅕ to 1/10 of the size of the MOSFET in the first power clamp circuit 220”, ranges overlap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the specified size ratio SR range with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Gao further teaches the ESD protection cell region of claim 6, wherein:
the size ratio SR is in a range (≈6.0) ≤ SR ≤ (≈4.0) (paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the specified size ratio SR range with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Sorgeloos et al. (US Publication 20180006016).
Regarding independent claim 11, Lin teaches a resistor-diode ladder region (fig. 1, 2) of a semiconductor device comprising:
a first resistor (213) coupling the first node to the second node (see marked figure corresponding to claim 2).
Lin does not teach alpha active regions extending in a first direction and being configured with a first dopant- type to function as either cathodes or anodes of corresponding diodes; and beta active regions extending in the first direction and being configured with a second dopant type different than the first dopant type to function complementarily as either anodes or cathodes of corresponding diodes; and a well region configured with the first dopant-type; a first alpha active region and first and second beta active regions being in the well region; the first beta active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of the first alpha active region representing corresponding portions of a first diode; the second beta active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of the first alpha active region representing corresponding portions of a second diode; a second alpha active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of a third beta active region representing corresponding portions of a third diode; a third alpha active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of the third beta active region representing corresponding portions of a fourth diode; the first alpha active region and the third beta active region being coupled correspondingly to different first and second reference voltages; the first beta active region and the second alpha active region being coupled to a first node; the second beta active region or the third alpha active region being coupled to a second node.
Sorgeloos teaches alpha active regions (810b and 830b) extending in a first direction and being configured with a first dopant-type (paragraph 0060) to function as either cathodes or anodes of corresponding diodes (paragraph 0082); and
beta active regions (820b and 840b) extending in the first direction and being configured with a second dopant type different than the first dopant type (paragraph 0060) to function complementarily as either anodes or cathodes of corresponding diodes (paragraph 0082); and
a well region (801b) configured with the first dopant-type (paragraph 0060);
a first alpha active region (810b) and first and second beta active regions (820b) being in the well region;
the first beta active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of the first alpha active region representing corresponding portions of a first diode (can be configured to represent first diode 212 of Lin per MPEP 2144);
the second beta active region and a corresponding overlapping portion of the first alpha active region representing corresponding portions of a second diode (can be configured to represent second diode 211 of Lin per MPEP 2144);
a second alpha active region (portion of 830b) and a corresponding overlapping portion of a third beta active region (840b) representing corresponding portions of a third diode (can be configured to represent third diode 221 of Lin per MPEP 2144);
a third alpha active region (portion of 830b) and a corresponding overlapping portion of the third beta active region representing corresponding portions of a fourth diode (can be configured to represent fourth diode 222 of Lin per MPEP 2144);
the first alpha active region and the third beta active region being coupled correspondingly to different first and second reference voltages (connect to different first and second reference voltages VDD and VSS of Lin);
the first beta active region and the second alpha active region being coupled to a first node (coupled to first node of Lin shown in marked figure corresponding to claim 2);
the second beta active region or the third alpha active region being coupled to a second node (coupled to second node of Lin shown in marked figure corresponding to claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the resistor-diode ladder region of Lin and the alpha/beta active regions of Sorgeloos in order to reduce SCR reaction time and voltage overshoot (Sorgeloos paragraph 0007).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Lin further teaches the resistor-diode ladder region of claim 11, wherein:
the first node is coupled to an input/output (I/O) pad (fig. 1, 3) of the semiconductor device (see marked figure corresponding to claim 2).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Lin further teaches the resistor-diode ladder region of claim 13, wherein:
the resistor-diode ladder (fig. 1, 2) is coupled between the I/O pad and core circuitry (11) of the semiconductor device.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Sorgeloos further teaches the resistor-diode ladder region of claim 11, further comprising:
metallization layers (850b) stacked over the alpha and beta active regions including:
an ith metallization layer (850b) over the first and second active regions including one or more M(i) segments extending in the second direction (fig. 8B), where i is a non-negative integer.
Lin in view of Sorgeloos does not explicitly teach a (i+j)th metallization layer over the ith metallization layer, the (i+j)th metallization layer including one or more M(i+1) segments extending in the first direction, where j is a positive integer; and the first resistor is represented substantially by the one or more M(i+1) segments, however, Sorgeloos discloses layout styles can also be combined (paragraph 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a (i+j)th metallization layer including one or more M(i+1) segments extending in the first direction, with the first resistor of Lin being represented by the one or more M(i+1) segments in order to improve trigger behavior (Sorgeloos paragraph 0078), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Sorgeloos as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US Publication 20210375853).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Lin in view of Sorgeloos teaches the resistor-diode ladder region of claim 15.
Lin in view of Sorgeloos does not teach wherein: a resistance of the first resistor is based primarily upon a resistance of the one or more M(i+1) segments; and the resistance of the one or more M(i+1) segments is based substantially on corresponding lengths of the one or more M(i+1) segments
Chen teaches wherein:
a resistance of the first resistor is based primarily upon a resistance of the one or more M(i+1) segments; and
the resistance of the one or more M(i+1) segments is based substantially on corresponding lengths of the one or more M(i+1) segments
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the resistor-diode ladder region of Lin in view of Sorgeloos and the resistance of Chen in order to configure the resistance of the conductive pattern (Chen paragraph 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights