DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 16 January 2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18-21, 24, 26, and 28-33 are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-15 and 18 are 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. The claim(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “each of the sixth and third cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, the third cell is arranged in a first row, the sixth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the six cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the third cell along the second row … a lower edge of the P-well of the third cell is abutting with an upper edge of the P-well of the fourth cell … the P-well of the fourth cell extends into the first row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the sixth cell extends into the first row”, which is not supported by the originally-filed disclosure. The claim was rejected under similar grounds in the prior office action, and the claim has been amended to change the location of the fourth cell to the second row, but the claim remains inconsistent with the disclosure regarding the relative positions of the third, fourth, and sixth cells.
The claim now requires that the third cell be in the first row, and the fourth cell be in the second row, where the lower edge of the P-well of the third cell abuts the upper edge of the P-well of the fourth cell. So the claimed third and fourth cells must be either cells 1010 + 1012 or 1006 + 1008. The claim further requires that the sixth cell be in the same second row as the fourth cell, that the P-well of the sixth cell overlap the P-well of the third cell in the second row, and the P-well of the sixth and fourth cells extend into the first row by different distances. There is no possible sixth cell in Figs. 10 or 11 that meets all of these criteria.
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(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 24, 26, 28, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US 2019/0148407) in view of Yang (2020/0006481), Huang (US 10,497,693), Breid (US 6,385,761), Jassowski (US 5,798,541), and Kozai (US 6,785,877).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a device having optimized cell placement comprising:
a plurality of cells arranged in a plurality of rows (Fig. 12), each cell comprising:
a first cell region and a second cell region abutting the first cell region, wherein: a reference edge of each row is defined where the first cell region and the second cell region abut each other, each reference edge is aligned with a placement reference edge of a respective row (Figs. 1, 5A-7B, 11, and 12);
heights of first and second cells and a third cell between the first and second cells along a row vary in size in relation to the placement reference edge of said row, the height of the third cell is greater than the heights of the first and second cells or the height of the third cell is less than the heights of the first and second cells, and the heights are defined in a vertical direction relative to the reference edge of said row (Figs. 1 and 5A-7B, cell heights defined relative to reference edge of the row; Fig. 12, SC41 or SC42 are taller than adjacent cells in the same row; alternatively, the cells between SC41 and SC42 are shorter);
a plurality of sets of ground rails and power rails located at an offset with respect to the reference edge (Figs. 5A-7B and 10-12);
a fifth cell including a well overlapping a ground rail or a power rail (Figs. 1 and 5A-7B); and
a sixth cell and a seventh cell, the third cell is arranged in a first row, the sixth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the six cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the third cell along the second row, and the third cell and the sixth cell are separated by a first distance along a horizontal direction, the seventh cell is arranged in the first row, a lower edge of the sixth cell is abutting with an upper edge of the seventh cell, the third cell and the seventh cell are separated by a second distance along the horizontal direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance (Fig. 12, third cell any of SC41, SC42, or lower right bolded cell; for SC41, sixth cell is upper cell to the right and seventh cell is below it; for SC42 and lower right bolded cell, sixth cell is upper cell to the left and seventh cell is below it).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose a fourth cell including a single N-well without a P-well or a single P-well without an N-well. Yang discloses these limitations (¶95). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo and Yang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of forming layouts with different types of cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses cell layouts. Yang teaches that cell layouts can include cells of different types, such as cells with only a single N-/P-well. The teachings of Yang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s layouts would similarly include cells with a single N-/P-well.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that each of the sixth and third cells has a single N-well and a single P-well and a lower edge of the P-well of the sixth cell is abutting with an upper edge of a P-well of the seventh cell. Huang discloses a sixth cell and a seventh cell, wherein each of the sixth and third cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, the third cell is arranged in a first row, the sixth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the six cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the third cell along the second row, the seventh cell is arranged in the first row, a lower edge of the P-well of the sixth cell is abutting with an upper edge of a P-well of the seventh cell (Fig. 3; third cell 330, sixth cell to the upper left, seventh cell below the sixth cell).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, and Huang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing more flexible layout of mixed-height cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses layouts having cells of mixed heights arranged in different ways and with varying separation. Huang teaches cells having single N/P-wells of different heights are arranged so that same-type wells from different-height cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap. The teachings of Huang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly layout mixed-height cells so that cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap with varied separation, in order to increase the flexibility that designers have in designing and laying out mixed-height cells.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the P-well of the seventh cell extends into the second row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the third cell extends into the second row, and the P-well of the sixth cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the seventh cell in the second row to the placement reference edge of the second row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the sixth cell. However, as discussed above, Huang discloses the third, sixth, and seventh cells (Fig. 3). Breid discloses that the P-well of the seventh cell extends into the second row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the third cell extends into the second row (Fig. 4). Jassowski discloses that the P-well of the sixth cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the seventh cell in the second row to the placement reference edge of the second row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the sixth cell (col. 6, lines 32-35); Kozai further discloses sixth cells shorter than the row height (Figs. 8 and 11). Thus, Breid and Kozai teach cells of incrementally varying heights both taller and shorter than the row height, and Jassowski teaches that cells with protruding edges are fit together with cells having receding edges, so Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski together suggest cell arrangements where a cell taller than the row height is fit together with cells shorter than the row height.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, and Kozai, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of reducing layout area. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses layouts having cells of mixed heights arranged in different ways. Huang teaches that cells of mixed heights are arranged so that their wells vertically overlap. Breid and Kozai further teach mixed height cells that are taller and shorter, respectively, and Jassowski teaches that taller cells are fitted together with shorter cells. The teachings of Huang, Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly arrange taller and shorter cells to fit together in order to create more compact cell layouts.
Regarding claim 5, Guo discloses that the plurality of cells comprise a skewed cell and a height of one of the first cell region and the second cell region of the skewed cell is greater than a height of the other of the first cell region and the second cell region of the skewed cell (Fig. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 7, Guo discloses that the plurality of cells comprise a fractional height cell, a height of the first cell region of the fractional height cell and a height of the second cell region of the fractional height cell are equal to each other, and a height of a combination of the first cell region and the second cell region of the fractional cell is a fraction of a height of a standard cell (Fig. 5A and 6A).
Regarding claim 8, Guo discloses that the plurality of cells comprise an elongated cell, a height of the first cell region of the elongated cell and a height of the second cell region of the elongated cell are equal to each other, and a height of a combination of the first cell region and the second cell region of the elongated cell is greater than a height of a standard cell (Figs. 5B and 6B).
Regarding claim 12, Guo discloses that the plurality of cells comprise a skewed fractional cell and a height of one of the first cell region and the second cell region of the skewed fractional cell is a fraction of the other of the first cell region and the second cell region of the skewed fractional cell (Figs. 7A-B).
Regarding claim 21, Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that each of the first and second cell regions of a cell has opposite first and second edges; the first edges of the first and second cell regions of said cell abut each other; the ground rail is closer to the first edge of the first cell region of said cell than the second edge of the first cell region of said cell; and the power rail is closer to the first edge of the second cell region of said cell than the second edge of the second cell region of said cell. Breid discloses these limitations (Fig. 4, left side cells 160n). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Jassowski, Kozai, and Breid, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the combination of known elements according to known methods, to achieve the predictable results of increasing flexibility of cell design and layout. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses layouts of standard cells of varying heights. Breid teaches cells of varying heights with the same power rail spacing to improve flexibility of cell design and layout. The teachings of Breid are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly include varying-height cells with the same power rail spacing, in order to further improve flexibility of cell design and layout.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Guo discloses the nineth cell includes a first cell region and a second cell region, and an eighth cell in a same row with the fourth cell, the eighth cell including a first cell region and a second cell region (Figs. 1, 4, and 10-12, eighth and nineth cells are any cells having at least two regions), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fourth cell includes a single second cell region without a first cell region, and the second cell region of the fourth cell has same/greater height as the second cell region of the nineth/eighth cell. Yang discloses that the fourth cell includes a single second cell region without a first cell region and the second cell region of the fourth cell has the same height as the second cell region of the eighth cell (Fig. 5A, cells 534A having same region height as other cells). Breid further discloses that the region heights are incrementally variable (Fig. 4; col. 4, lines 14-19). The combination of Breid and Yang thus suggests a fourth cell having only a second cell region (Yang) where the second region is same/greater height than any other cell region, including the second regions of eighth or nineth cells, since the cell regions have incrementally variable height.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Huang, Jassowski, Kozai, Yang, and Breid, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of forming layouts with different types of variable-height cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses cell layouts with variable heights. Yang teaches that cell layouts can include cells of different types, such as cells with only a single N-/P-well, and Breid teaches that the cells and their regions have incrementally variable heights The teachings of Yang and Breid are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s layouts would similarly include variable-height cells with a single N-/P-well, thus further improving layout flexibility.
Regarding claim 28, Guo discloses a tenth cell in an adjacent row to the fifth cell, wherein the fifth cell includes first and second cell regions, and the tenth cell including a single first cell region that abuts the first cell region of the first cell (Figs. 4, 10, 11, or 12, any two abutting cells in adjacent rows with first and second regions), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the tenth cell is without a second cell region. Yang discloses these limitations (Fig. 5A, cells 534A). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the third cell includes a N-well and a P-well having substantially the same height as the N-well, a first power rail overlaps a central line of the P-well of the third cell, and a first ground rail overlaps a central line of the N-well of the third cell. Huang discloses these limitations (Fig. 5, cell 520 and rails 501/502). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Sio (US 2019/0164949), Huang, Breid, Jassowski, and Kozai.
Regarding claim 13, Guo discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a device comprising a plurality of cells (¶76), the computer-implemented method comprising:
defining, within a cell library comprising the plurality of cells, a standard height cell (Fig. 5A; ¶76);
defining, within the cell library (¶76), a first cell comprising an N-well and a P-well, wherein a reference edge of the first cell is defined at an edge where the N-well and the P-well abut each other and wherein a total height of the first cell is greater than or less than a total height of the standard height cell (Fig. 5B; ¶30); and
fabricating, using the cell library (¶76), the device comprising a portion of the plurality of cells including the first cell, wherein:
third and fourth cells, each comprising an N-well and a P-well, are in adjacent rows of the device (Figs. 4 and 10);
the reference edge of the first cell is aligned with a placement reference edge in a row of the device (Fig. 1); heights of at least a portion of the cells in said row vary in size in relation to the placement reference edge for the row, and the heights are defined in a vertical direction relative to the reference edge (Figs. 5-7 and 11);
a plurality of sets of ground rails and power rails located at an offset with respect to the reference edge (Fig. 11, sets of V2 and V1 rails offset with respect to any reference edge);
a fifth cell including a well overlapping a ground rail or a power rail (Fig. 1); and
a sixth cell, wherein the third cell is arranged in a first row, the sixth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the six cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the third cell along the second row, and the third cell and the sixth cell are separated by a first distance along a horizontal direction, the fourth cell is arranged in the second row, a lower edge of the third cell is abutting with an upper edge of the fourth cell, the sixth cell and the fourth cell are separated by a second distance along the horizontal direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance (Fig. 12, sixth cell any of SC41, SC42, or lower right bolded cell; for SC41, third cell is upper cell to the right and fourth cell is below it; for SC42 and lower right bolded cell, third cell is upper cell to the left and fourth cell is below it).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose defining, within the cell library, a second cell comprising a single N-well without a P-well or a single P-well without an N-well. Yang discloses these limitations (¶95). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo and Yang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of forming layouts with different types of cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses cell layouts. Yang teaches that cell layouts can include cells of different types, such as cells with only a single N-/P-well. The teachings of Yang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s layouts would similarly include cells with a single N-/P-well.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the N-well or the P-well of the fourth cell abuts the P-well or the N-well of the third cell, respectively. Yang discloses these limitations (Fig. 5A, cells 532A in adjacent rows with abutting N/P). If Yang is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Sio also discloses third and fourth cells, each comprising an N-well and a P-well, are in adjacent rows of the device, wherein the N-well or the P-well of the fourth cell abuts the P-well or the N-well of the third cell, respectively (Fig. 2A; e.g., p-well of cell 180-1a abutting N-well of cell 180-2a). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, and Sio, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of increasing layout flexibility by allowing additional different-height cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo teaches a layout having cells of different heights. Yang and Sio teach that such a layout can include cells in adjacent rows, the cell boundary being between N and P regions such that the N- and P-wells of the cells abut. The teachings of Yang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s layout would similarly include cells in adjacent rows such that the cell boundary is between the N- and P-wells, in order to further increase layout flexibility by allowing additional cells of different heights.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that each of the sixth and third cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, a lower edge of the P-well of the sixth cell is abutting with an upper edge of the P-well of the fourth cell. Huang discloses a sixth cell and a fourth cell, wherein each of the sixth and third cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, the third cell is arranged in a first row, the sixth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the six cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the third cell along the second row, the fourth cell is arranged in the first row, a lower edge of the P-well of the sixth cell is abutting with an upper edge of a P-well of the fourth cell (Fig. 3; third cell 330, sixth cell to the upper left, fourth cell below the sixth cell). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Sio, and Huang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of increasing flexibility of mixed-height cell placement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses libraries and layouts having cells of mixed heights. Huang teaches that cells having wells of differing heights can be placed in the same row, and that wells of such cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap. The teachings of Huang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly layout mixed-height cells so that cells having different well heights are placed the same row, and wells of cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap, in order to allow more flexibility in how mixed-height cells are arranged.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the P-well of the fourth cell extends into the first row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the sixth cell extends into the first row, and the P-well of the third cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the fourth cell in the first row to a placement reference edge of the first row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the third cell. However, as discussed above, Huang discloses the third, fourth, and sixth cells (Fig. 3). Breid discloses that the P-well of the fourth cell extends into the first row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the sixth cell extends into the first row (Fig. 4). Jassowski discloses that the P-well of the third cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the fourth cell in the first row to a placement reference edge of the first row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the third cell (col. 6, lines 32-35); Kozai further discloses third cells shorter than the row height (Figs. 8 and 11). Thus, Breid and Kozai teach cells of incrementally varying heights both taller and shorter than the row height, and Jassowski teaches that cells with protruding edges are fit together with cells having receding edges, so Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski together suggest cell arrangements where a cell taller than the row height is fit together with cells shorter than the row height.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Sio, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, and Kozai, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of reducing layout area. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses layouts having cells of mixed heights arranged in different ways. Huang teaches that cells of mixed heights are arranged so that their wells vertically overlap. Breid and Kozai further teach mixed height cells that are taller and shorter, respectively, and Jassowski teaches that taller cells are fitted together with shorter cells. The teachings of Huang, Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly arrange taller and shorter cells to fit together in order to create more compact cell layouts.
Regarding claim 14, Guo discloses defining, within the cell library, a skewed N cell comprising a first P-well and a first N-well, wherein the first P-well has a height that is greater than a height of the first N-well (Figs. 7A-B), a third cell comprising a second N-well and a second P-well, wherein a height of the second N-well and a height of the second P-well are equal (Fig. 6B), a fractional height cell comprising a third N-well and a third P-well, wherein a height of the third N-well and a height of the third P-well are equal, the height of the third N-well is less than the height of the second N-well, and the height of the third P-well is less than the height of the second P-well (Fig. 6A), an elongated cell comprising a fourth N-well and a fourth P-well, wherein a height of the fourth N-well is equal to a height of the fourth P-well, the height of the fourth N-well is less than the height of the second N-well, and the height of the fourth P-well is less than the height of the second P-well (Fig. 5B), a split double height cell comprising cells in adjacent pair of rows (Figs. 10 and 11, any of the multi-row cells), and a double standard height cell comprising an N-well of a cell in a first adjacent row, P-well of a cell in a second adjacent row, and an N-well and a P-well of a cell in a third adjacent row adjacent the first and second adjacent rows (Figs. 5A, 6B, and 12).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose an N-only cell comprising a fifth N-well. Yang discloses these limitations (Fig. 5A, cells 534A). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Guo discloses that defining, within the cell library, a skewed P cell comprising a first N-well and a first P-well, wherein a height of the first N-well is greater than a height of the first P-well (Fig. 10, any cell with a tall n region and short p region), and a skewed P fractional cell comprising a second N-well and a second P-well, wherein a height of the second N-well is a fraction of the second P-well (Figs. 7A-B).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose a P-only cell comprising only a P-well. Yang discloses these limitations (Fig. 5A, cells 534A). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 13.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Sio, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Chen (US 2020/0126901).
Regarding claim 18, Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose defining extender pins that are spaced apart from each other and that connect and overlap the first cell region or the second cell region of a cell and the power rail or the ground rail. Chen discloses these limitations (Fig. 1A, 182-186n/p). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Sio, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Chen, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of establishing power connections to cells in a layout. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses a layout comprising cells and power rails. Chen teaches that cells are connected to power rails using spaced-apart extender pins. The teachings of Chen are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s cells would similarly be connected to the power rails using spaced-apart extender pins.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chen, Sio, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, and Kozai.
Regarding claim 19, Guo discloses a device comprising a plurality of cells having varying heights (Fig. 11), each cell comprising a first cell region and a second cell region positioned to abut the first cell region, wherein a reference edge is defined where the first cell region and the second cell region abut each other, the reference edge of a cell is between power and ground rails and the heights being defined in a vertical direction relative to the reference edge (Figs. 5-7 and 11), and first and second cells, each comprising an N-well and a P-well, in adjacent rows of the device (Figs. 4 and 10);
a third cell including a well overlapping a ground rail or a power rail (Fig. 1); and
fourth and fifth cells, the fourth cell is arranged in a first row, the fifth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the fourth cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the fifth cell along the second row, and a sixth cell, wherein the fourth cell and the fifth cell are separated by a first distance along a horizontal direction, the sixth cell is arranged in the first row, a lower edge of the fourth cell is abutting with an upper edge of the sixth cell, the fifth cell and the sixth cell are separated by a second distance along the horizontal direction, and the first distance is greater than the second distance (Fig. 12, fifth cell any of SC41, SC42, or lower right bolded cell; for SC41, fourth cell is upper cell to the right and sixth cell is below it; for SC42 and lower right bolded cell, fourth cell is upper cell to the left and sixth cell is below it).
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the power and ground rails do not intersect both of the first cell region and the second cell region, first spaced apart extender pins connect and overlap the first cell region of said cell and the ground rail, and second spaced apart extender pins connect and overlap the second cell region of said cell and the power rail. Chen discloses these limitations (Fig. 1A; ¶26). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo and Chen, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of establishing power connections to cells in a layout. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses a layout comprising cells and power rails. Chen teaches that cells are connected to power rails using spaced-apart extender pins. The teachings of Chen are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s cells would similarly be connected to the power rails using spaced-apart extender pins.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the N-well or the P-well of the second cell abuts the P-well or the N-well of the first cell, respectively. Sio discloses first and second cells, each comprising an N-well and a P-well, in adjacent rows of the device, wherein the N-well or the P-well of the second cell abuts the P-well or the N-well of the first cell, respectively (Fig. 2A; e.g., p-well of cell 180-1a abutting N-well of cell 180-2a). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Chen, and Sio, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of increasing layout flexibility by allowing additional different-height cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo teaches a layout having cells of different heights. Sio teaches that such a layout can include cells in adjacent rows, the cell boundary being between N and P regions such that the N- and P-wells of the cells abut. The teachings of Sio are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s layout would similarly include cells in adjacent rows such that the cell boundary is between the N- and P-wells, in order to further increase layout flexibility by allowing additional cells of different heights.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that each of the fourth and fifth cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, and a lower edge of the N-well of the fourth cell is abutting with an upper edge of a N-well of the sixth cell. Huang discloses fourth and fifth cells, wherein each of the fourth and fifth cells has a single N-well and a single P-well, the fourth cell is arranged in a first row, the fifth cell is arranged in a second row adjacent to the first row, and the P-well of the fourth cell vertically overlaps the P-well of the fifth cell along the second row, and a sixth cell, wherein the sixth cell is arranged in the second row, a lower edge of the P-well of the fourth cell is abutting with an upper edge of a N-well of the sixth cell (Fig. 3; third cell 330, sixth cell to the upper left, fourth cell below the sixth cell). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Sio, Chae, and Huang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of increasing flexibility of mixed-height cell placement while minimizing layout area. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses libraries and layouts having cells of mixed heights. Huang teaches that cells having wells of differing heights can be placed in the same row, and that wells of such cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap. The teachings of Huang are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly layout mixed-height cells so that cells having different well heights are placed the same row, and wells of cells in adjacent rows vertically overlap, in order to allow more flexibility in how mixed-height cells are arranged, and to generate more compact layouts of mixed-height cells.
Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the P-well of the sixth cell extends into the first row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the fifth cell extends into the first row, and the P-well of the fourth cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the sixth cell to a placement reference edge of the first row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the fourth cell. However, as discussed above, Huang discloses the third, fifth, and sixth cells (Fig. 3). Breid discloses that the P-well of the sixth cell extends into the first row by a third distance shorter than a fourth distance by which the P-well of the fifth cell extends into the first row (Fig. 4). Jassowski discloses that the P-well of the fourth cell extends from the upper edge of the P-well of the sixth cell to a placement reference edge of the first row that interfaces the N-well and the P-well of the fourth cell (col. 6, lines 32-35); Kozai further discloses fourth cells shorter than the row height (Figs. 8 and 11). Thus, Breid and Kozai teach cells of incrementally varying heights both taller and shorter than the row height, and Jassowski teaches that cells with protruding edges are fit together with cells having receding edges, so Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski together suggest cell arrangements where a cell taller than the row height is fit together with cells shorter than the row height.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Chen, Sio, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, and Kozai, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, to achieve the predictable results of reducing layout area. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses layouts having cells of mixed heights arranged in different ways. Huang teaches that cells of mixed heights are arranged so that their wells vertically overlap. Breid and Kozai further teach mixed height cells that are taller and shorter, respectively, and Jassowski teaches that taller cells are fitted together with shorter cells. The teachings of Huang, Breid, Kozai, and Jassowski are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly arrange taller and shorter cells to fit together in order to create more compact cell layouts.
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses that the first cell region comprises an N-well and the second cell region comprises a P-well (Figs. 5-7).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Sio.
Regarding claim 29, Guo disclose that the fifth cell further comprises: a second well having a lower boundary and an upper boundary, wherein the lower boundary abuts the well of the fifth cell; and a third well having a lower boundary and an upper boundary, wherein the upper boundary abuts the well of the fifth cell and the upper boundary aligns with the reference edge in the first row, wherein the well, the second well and the third well of the fifth cell have vertical boundaries vertically aligned with one another (Fig. 10, any cells with three wells, including SC31-34).
Yang also discloses that the fifth cell further comprises: a second well having a lower boundary and an upper boundary, wherein the lower boundary abuts the well of the fifth cell (Fig. 5A, cells 508A(1) or 508A(2), upper well); and a third well having a lower boundary and an upper boundary, wherein the upper boundary abuts the well of the fifth cell and the upper boundary aligns with the reference edge in the first row (Fig. 5A, cells 508A(1) or 508A(2), lower well; boundary between lower well and center well aligns with the row centerline and reference edge for e.g. adjacent cells 532A); wherein the well, the second well and the third well of the fifth cell have vertical boundaries vertically aligned with one another (Fig. 5A, cells 508A(1) or 508A(2), P/N wells are vertically aligned). If Yang is found to be unclear regarding the wells abutting, persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the active regions are within wells which abut each other, as taught by Sio (Fig. 2A, different active regions 212 in abutting wells 214 and 216).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, Yang, and Sio, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing larger cell sizes and different cell types. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses a cell layout. Yang teaches a flexible layout allowing larger cells having different combinations of active regions; persons having ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the active regions would be located within corresponding abutting wells as taught by Sio. The teachings of Yang and Sio are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s cell layout would similarly include larger cells having different combinations of active regions in abutting wells.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, Penzes, and Sio.
Regarding claim 30, Guo discloses that the lower edge of the P-well of the sixth cell and the upper edge of the P-well of the seventh cell are not aligned with the reference edge (Fig. 11). Similarly, Huang also discloses these limitations (Fig. 3, cells in the left column having upper and lower diffusion regions and the boundaries between cells not aligned at the reference edge). If Guo or Huang are found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Penzes also discloses the same (Fig. 6C, tall cells, such as 614 and neighbor above it, abut away from the reference edge). If Breid, Huang, and Penzes are found to be unclear regarding the wells abutting, persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the active regions are within wells which abut each other, as taught by Sio (Fig. 2A, different active regions 212 in abutting wells 214 and 216).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, Penzes, and Sio, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing larger cell sizes in a smaller area. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo discloses a cell layout. Penzes teaches a compacted flexible layout allowing larger cells in smaller area; persons having ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the active regions would be located within corresponding abutting wells as taught by Sio. The teachings of Penzes and Sio are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo’s cell layout would similarly include larger cells with abutting wells in a smaller area.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Sio (US 2020/0134119, hereinafter “Tzeng”).
Regarding claim 31, Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose an extender pin overlapping the P-well of the six cell and a P-well of the seventh cell; Tzeng discloses these limitations (Fig. 2F, any multi-row pins, e.g., 240(4), 240(5), 260). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Tzeng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving pin access. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo, Yang, and Huang disclose cell layouts having adjacent rows of cells. Tzeng teaches that the cells are connected using extender pins that overlap wells of cells on multiple rows. The teachings of Tzeng are directly applicable to Guo, Yang, or Huang, so that their cell layouts would similarly use extender pins to improve pin access.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yang, Huang, Breid, Jassowski, Kozai, and Chen.
Regarding claim 33, Guo does not appear to explicitly disclose an eighth cell abutting the third cell and including an N-well and a P-well having a larger height than the N-well, wherein a second ground rail overlaps of a central line of the N-well of the eighth cell, and the sixth cell has a height shorter than a distance between the first power rail and the second ground rail; a ninth cell abutting the upper edge of the N-well of the sixth cell; a tenth cell having only a N-well abuts a N-well of the fifth cell; a first extender pin overlapping the P-wells of the sixth and seventh cells and the first power rail; and a second extender pin overlaps the N-well of the sixth cell, a N-well of the ninth cell and the second ground rail.
Yang discloses a tenth cell having only a N-well abuts a N-well of the fifth cell (Fig. 5B, cells 534, e.g. cells 534B in bottom row abutting various cells 508B, 532B, etc.). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Huang discloses an eighth cell abutting the third cell and including an N-well and a P-well having a larger height than the N-well (Fig. 3, cell 320), wherein a second ground rail overlaps of a central line of the N-well of the eighth cell (Figs. 3 and 8, rail 801); and a ninth cell abutting the upper edge of the N-well of the sixth cell (Fig. 3, cell 310). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Kozai discloses the sixth cell has a height shorter than a distance between the first power rail and the second ground rail (Figs. 8 and 11; cells 104 and 105), a first extender pin overlapping the P-well of the sixth cell and the first power rail, and a second extender pin overlaps the N-well of the sixth cell and the second ground rail (Fig. 11, pins connecting VDD/VSS to cells 104 and 105). The combination of Kozai, Huang, and Breid would further result in the first extender pin overlapping the P-wells of the sixth and seventh cells and the first power rail, and a second extender pin overlaps the N-well of the sixth cell, a N-well of the ninth cell and the second ground rail. Kozai teaches that the sixth cell is shorter than the distance between the power and ground rails, Huang discloses the seventh and ninth cells abutting the sixth cell, and Breid teaches incrementally larger cells whose wells extend beyond the rails (Fig. 4), so Kozai, Huang, and Breid together suggest a sixth cell shorter than the distance between power and ground rails, abutted by seventh and ninth cells that extend past the rails, and extender pins connecting the short sixth cell to the rails and thus overlapping the sixth, seventh, and ninth cells.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Jassowski, Kozai, and Breid, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of increasing layout flexibility using short cells. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Guo discloses layouts of cells having varying heights and arrangements. Kozai teaches cells shorter than the distance between rails, which are connected to the rails by extender pins, Huang teaches cells of varying heights with vertically overlapping wells, and Breid discloses library cells having varying heights beyond power rails, all of which increase flexibility of cell design and layout. The teachings of Kozai, Huang, and Breid are directly applicable to Guo in the same way, so that Guo would similarly use shorter cells connected to rails by extender pins and cells with varying heights beyond power rail separations, arranged so that wells vertically overlap, in order to further improve flexibility of cell design and layout.
If Guo, Breid, Huang, and Kozai are found to be unclear regarding the first extender pin overlapping the P-wells of the sixth and seventh cells and the first power rail, and a second extender pin overlaps the N-well of the sixth cell, a N-well of the ninth cell and the second ground rail, Tzeng also discloses the same Tzeng discloses these limitations (Fig. 2F, any multi-row pins, e.g., 240(4), 240(5), 260). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Guo, Yang, Huang, Jassowski, Kozai, Breid, and Tzeng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving pin access. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Guo, Yang, Huang, and Breid disclose cell layouts having adjacent rows of cells. Tzeng teaches that the cells are connected using extender pins that overlap wells of cells on multiple rows. The teachings of Tzeng are directly applicable to Guo, Yang, Huang, or Breid, so that their cell layouts would similarly use extender pins to improve pin access.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added limitations, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
5 May 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights