DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 29 June 2026. Claims 1-20 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 § 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, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz (US 2018/0314785) in view of Lu (US 2015/0364359), Licausi (US 2018/0174895), Shah (US 9,070,552), Sivakumar (US 2003/0207584), Seyyedy (US 2007/0029630), and Cox (US 6,166,439).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) layout diagram system (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60) comprising:
a processor (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60); and
a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium including computer program code for one or more programs, the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code being configured to, with the processor, cause the system (¶59) to:
place a cell comprising a first metal segment of a first metal layer in an IC layout diagram, wherein the cell has a cell height in a first direction (¶¶3, 4, 28);
route a second metal segment of a second metal layer overlying and adjacent to the first metal layer to the cell by positioning the second metal segment along a first plurality of tracks having a first pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 1; ¶3, 4);
route a third metal segment of a third metal layer overlying and adjacent to the second metal layer to the second metal segment by positioning the third metal segment along a second plurality of tracks having a second pitch in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 2; ¶3, 4);
route a fourth metal segment of a fourth metal layer overlying and adjacent to the third metal layer to the third metal segment by positioning the fourth metal segment along a third plurality of tracks having a third pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 3; ¶3, 4); and
generate an IC layout file comprising geometric pattern information of each of the first metal segment, the second metal segment, the third metal segment, and the fourth metal segment arranged in respective first through fourth layers (Fig. 3, segments in respective Metal 0-3 layers; ¶3); and
fabricate a set of masks based on the IC layout file (¶¶27, 60).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed routed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). 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 Schultz and Lu, 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 decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, and Shah, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, and Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch. The teachings of Licausi and Shah are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells based on the first pitch to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a first one or more masks of the set of masks corresponds to the third pitch, a fourth plurality of tracks corresponds to the fourth metal layer and a second or more masks of the set of masks and has a fourth pitch in the first direction, and a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks is greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks. Sivakumar discloses these limitations (¶13; Fig. 6 utilization area). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Sivakumar, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. The teachings of Sivakumar are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using metal layers having different pitches corresponding to different masks to improve design flexibility and exposure quality.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fourth pitch is greater than the second pitch. However, this is a typical pitch relationship, as stated in Lu (¶3), and exemplified by Seyyedy (¶29, Table I, e.g. M3 logic interconnect pitch > M2 pitch). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, and Seyyedy, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. Lu and Seyyedy teach a typical pitch relationship of a pitch of a higher metal layer is greater than a pitch of a lower metal layer. The teachings of Lu and Seyyedy are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using a metal layer having a pitch greater than that of a lower metal layer, to improve manufacturability and/or performance where possible/needed.
If Sivakumar is found to be unclear regarding a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks being greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks, Cox provides evidence that Sivakumar teaches those limitations (col. 6, lines 25-38). Specifically, Sivakumar Fig. 6 clearly shows that the region with smaller pitch has higher chip area utilization than the region with larger pitch, and Cox explicitly states that smaller pitch results in higher utilization. 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, and Cox, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of efficiently using chip area for given design pitches. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches, with smaller pitches resulting in higher utilization, as supported by Cox. The teachings of Sivakumar and Cox are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly have higher chip area utilization when pitch is smaller, to efficiently use chip area for given design pitches.
Regarding claim 6, Schultz discloses that the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, further cause the system to: perform a design rule check on the fourth metal segment (¶¶4, 51).
Regarding claim 8, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) layout diagram generation system (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60) comprising:
a processor (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60); and
a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium including computer program code for one or more programs, the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code being configured to, with the processor, cause the system (¶59) to:
place a cell in an IC layout diagram, the cell having a cell height and comprising a first metal segment of a first metal layer (¶¶3, 4, 28);
overlap the cell by positioning a second metal segment of a second metal layer overlying and adjacent to the first metal layer along a first plurality of tracks having a first pitch aligned with the cell height (Figs. 1-3, any of Metal 1; ¶24);
overlap the second metal segment by positioning a third metal segment of a third metal layer overlying and adjacent to the second metal layer along a second plurality of tracks having a second pitch perpendicular to the cell height (Figs. 1-3, Metal 2);
overlap the third metal segment by positioning a fourth metal segment of a fourth metal layer overlying and adjacent to the third metal layer along a third plurality of tracks having a third pitch aligned with the cell height (Figs. 1-3, Metal 3); and
generate an IC layout file comprising geometric pattern information of each of the first metal segment, the second metal segment, the third metal segment, and the fourth metal segment arranged in the respective first through fourth layers (Fig. 3, segments in respective Metal 0-3 layers; ¶3), and
fabricate a set of masks based on the IC layout file (¶¶27, 60).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). 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 Schultz and Lu, 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 decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, and Shah, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, and Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch. The teachings of Licausi and Shah are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells based on the first pitch to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a first one or more masks of the set of masks corresponds to the third pitch, a fourth plurality of tracks corresponds to the fourth metal layer and a second or more masks of the set of masks and has a fourth pitch in the first direction, and a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks is greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks. Sivakumar discloses these limitations (¶13; Fig. 6 utilization area). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Sivakumar, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. The teachings of Sivakumar are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using metal layers having different pitches corresponding to different masks to improve design flexibility and exposure quality.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fourth pitch is greater than the second pitch. However, this is a typical pitch relationship, as stated in Lu (¶3), and exemplified by Seyyedy (¶29, Table I, e.g. M3 logic interconnect pitch > M2 pitch). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, and Seyyedy, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. Lu and Seyyedy teach a typical pitch relationship of a pitch of a higher metal layer is greater than a pitch of a lower metal layer. The teachings of Lu and Seyyedy are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using a metal layer having a pitch greater than that of a lower metal layer, to improve manufacturability and/or performance where possible/needed.
If Sivakumar is found to be unclear regarding a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks being greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks, Cox provides evidence that Sivakumar teaches those limitations (col. 6, lines 25-38). Specifically, Sivakumar Fig. 6 clearly shows that the region with smaller pitch has higher chip area utilization than the region with larger pitch, and Cox explicitly states that smaller pitch results in higher utilization. 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, and Cox, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of efficiently using chip area for given design pitches. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches, with smaller pitches resulting in higher utilization, as supported by Cox. The teachings of Sivakumar and Cox are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly have higher chip area utilization when pitch is smaller, to efficiently use chip area for given design pitches.
Regarding claim 9, Schultz discloses that the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, cause the system to overlap the first cell by overlapping the first metal segment of the cell with the second metal segment (Figs. 1-3, any of Metal 0-3 overlapping a vertically adjacent layer, e.g. Metal 0 segment overlapping metal gate).
Regarding claim 11, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first plurality of tracks comprises a total of three, four, or five tracks positioned within the cell height. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications and Licausi and teaches that the first plurality of tracks comprises a total of three, four, or five tracks positioned within the cell height (Licausi Fig. 2, five tracks 142 in cell 102i). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Schultz discloses that the second metal segment is a first second metal segment of the second metal layer positioned along a first track of the first plurality of tracks, and the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, cause the system to: further overlap the cell by positioning a second second metal segment along a second track of the first plurality of tracks, wherein the first and second second metal segments are aligned coextensively in a direction of the cell height (Figs. 1-3, any additional Metal 0-3 parallel to any second metal segment from claim 8, e.g. parallel Metal 0 segments).
Regarding claim 13, Schultz discloses the third metal segment is a first third metal segment of the third metal layer positioned along a first track of the second plurality of tracks, and the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, cause the system to: overlap the second second metal segment by positioning a second third metal segment of the third metal layer along the first track of the second plurality of tracks (Figs. 1-3, any additional Metal 0-3 parallel to any third metal segment from claim 8, e.g. parallel Metal 1 segments).
Regarding claim 14, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) layout diagram generation system (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60) comprising:
a processor (¶¶3, 20, 59, 60); and
a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium including computer program code for one or more programs, the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code being configured to, with the processor, cause the system (¶59) to:
place first and second cells in an IC layout diagram, each of the first and second cells comprising a first metal segment of a first metal layer and having a cell height in a first direction (¶¶3, 4, 28, 37);
execute at least a portion of an automated placement and routing (APR) algorithm whereby a first electrical connection to the first metal segment of the first cell and a second electrical connection to the first metal segment of the second cell are defined (Figs. 1-3, any contacts; ¶¶3, 4); and
generate an IC layout file comprising geometric pattern information of each of the first cell, the second cell, the first electrical connection, and the second electrical connection (¶3); and
fabricate a set of masks based on the IC layout file (¶¶27, 60), wherein
each of the first and second electrical connections comprises a second metal segment of a second metal layer overlying and adjacent to the first metal layer and aligned along a track of a first plurality of tracks having a first pitch in a first direction, a third metal segment of a third metal layer overlying and adjacent to the second metal layer and aligned along a track of a second plurality of tracks having a second pitch in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a fourth metal segment of a fourth metal layer overlying and adjacent to the third metal layer and aligned along a track of a third plurality of tracks having a third pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 1-3),
the IC layout file comprises geometric pattern information of each of the first through fourth metal segments arranged in the respective first through fourth layers (Fig. 3, segments in respective Metal 0-3 layers; ¶3).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). 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 Schultz and Lu, 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 decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, and Shah, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, and Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch. The teachings of Licausi and Shah are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells based on the first pitch to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a first one or more masks of the set of masks corresponds to the third pitch, a fourth plurality of tracks corresponds to the fourth metal layer and a second or more masks of the set of masks and has a fourth pitch in the first direction, and a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks is greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks. Sivakumar discloses these limitations (¶13; Fig. 6 utilization area). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Sivakumar, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. The teachings of Sivakumar are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using metal layers having different pitches corresponding to different masks to improve design flexibility and exposure quality.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fourth pitch is greater than the second pitch. However, this is a typical pitch relationship, as stated in Lu (¶3), and exemplified by Seyyedy (¶29, Table I, e.g. M3 logic interconnect pitch > M2 pitch). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, and Seyyedy, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing exposure settings for different pitches to improve design flexibility and exposure quality. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches that should be exposed with corresponding masks optimized for those pitches. Lu and Seyyedy teach a typical pitch relationship of a pitch of a higher metal layer is greater than a pitch of a lower metal layer. The teachings of Lu and Seyyedy are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route designs using a metal layer having a pitch greater than that of a lower metal layer, to improve manufacturability and/or performance where possible/needed.
If Sivakumar is found to be unclear regarding a chip area utilization value corresponding to the first one or more masks being greater than a chip area utilization value corresponding to the second one or more masks, Cox provides evidence that Sivakumar teaches those limitations (col. 6, lines 25-38). Specifically, Sivakumar Fig. 6 clearly shows that the region with smaller pitch has higher chip area utilization than the region with larger pitch, and Cox explicitly states that smaller pitch results in higher utilization. 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, and Cox, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of efficiently using chip area for given design pitches. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing of metal layers. Sivakumar teaches that metal layers have multiple pitches, with smaller pitches resulting in higher utilization, as supported by Cox. The teachings of Sivakumar and Cox are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly have higher chip area utilization when pitch is smaller, to efficiently use chip area for given design pitches.
Regarding claim 18, Schultz discloses the first and second cells are a subset of a plurality of cells, each cell of the plurality of cells comprises a corresponding first metal segment of the first metal layer, the APR algorithm comprises defining a plurality of electrical connections to corresponding first metal segments of the plurality of cells, and each electrical connection of the plurality of electrical connections comprises a corresponding second metal segment of the second metal layer aligned along a track of the first plurality of tracks, a corresponding third metal segment of the third metal layer aligned along a track of the second plurality of tracks, and a corresponding fourth metal segment of the fourth metal layer aligned along a track of the third plurality of tracks (Figs. 1-3; ¶37, array of cells having corresponding first-fourth metal segments as discussed above with regard to claim 14).
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Nelson (US 2018/0145063)
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Schultz discloses does not appear to explicitly disclose that the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to three or four. However, as discussed above with regard to claim 1, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications, and Licausi and Shah teach that cell height is a multiple of the first pitch/track. Nelson further teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is three or four (¶52). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Nelson, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 4-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi and Shah teaches that cells have heights that are a ratio of metal pitch/tracks, and Nelson teaches 4-track cells. The teachings of Licausi, Shah, and Nelson are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 4-track cells to meet design requirements.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ray (US 2018/0004886).
Regarding claim 3, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, further cause the system to: route a fifth metal segment of a fifth metal layer overlying and adjacent to the fourth metal layer to the fourth metal segment by positioning the fifth metal segment along a fifth plurality of tracks having a fifth pitch in the second direction wherein the fifth pitch is larger than the second pitch and the third pitch. However, these limitations are conventional, as taught by Lu (¶3; Fig. 13, M4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding the fifth pitch in the second direction, Ray discloses the same (Fig. 1C). 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 Schultz, Lu Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ray, because doing so would have involved merely the combination of known elements according to known techniques, and/or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to achieve the predictable results of improving performance by using wider pitches on orthogonal upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Ray teach upper metal layers in alternating orthogonal directions that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance. The teachings of Lu and Ray are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route orthogonal upper metal layers with wider pitches than lower metal layers to improve performance.
Regarding claim 7, Schultz discloses that the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, further cause the system to translate the IC layout file into a representative data file, wherein fabricating the set of masks is based on the representative data file (¶60). If Schultz is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Ray discloses the same (¶132). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ray, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of manufacturing masks according to layout data. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses generating masks from a layout. Ray teaches that generating masks from a layout includes converting a layout file into a representative data file. The teachings of Ray are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly convert the layout file into a representative data file to generate the mask.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, Ray, and Noguchi (US 2003/0032292).
Regarding claim 4, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the fifth pitch to the third pitch is greater than or equal to 1.3. Lu discloses these limitations (Fig. 13, P5 to P4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Noguchi discloses the same (¶174). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, Ray, and Noguchi, 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 performance by using wider pitches on upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Noguchi teach upper metal layers that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance, with Noguchi providing a specific example where the ratio of upper pitches to lower pitches is greater than or equal to 1.3. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that specific pitch ratios would be chosen by designers according to design requirements. The teachings of Lu and Noguchi are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route upper metal layers with pitches greater than or equal to 1.3 times the pitches of lower metal layers to improve performance.
Regarding claim 19, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that each of the first and second electrical connections comprises a fifth metal segment of a fifth metal layer overlying and adjacent to the fourth metal layer aligned along a track of a fifth plurality of tracks having a fifth pitch in the second direction. However, these limitations are conventional, as taught by Lu (¶3; Fig. 13, M4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding the fourth pitch in the second direction, Ray discloses the same (Fig. 1C). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claims 3 and 14.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose a ratio of the fifth pitch to the third pitch is greater than or equal to 1.3. Lu discloses these limitations (Fig. 13, P5 to P4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Noguchi discloses the same (¶174). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claims 4 and 14.
Claim(s) 5, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ang (US 2008/0201678).
Regarding claim 5, Schultz discloses that the cell is one cell of a plurality of cells (¶¶4, 37), and the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, further cause the system to place the plurality of cells in the IC layout diagram based on routing of each of a plurality of second metal segments of the second metal layer comprising the second metal segment, a plurality of third metal segments of the third metal layer comprising the third metal segment, and a plurality of fourth metal segments of the fourth metal layer comprising the fourth metal segment (¶¶24, 48).
If Schultz is found to be unclear regarding placing the plurality of cells in the IC layout diagram based on routing of each of a plurality of second metal segments of the second metal layer comprising the second metal segment, a plurality of third metal segments of the third metal layer comprising the third metal segment, and a plurality of fourth metal segments of the fourth metal layer comprising the fourth metal segment, Ang also discloses these limitations (Fig. 3, ¶35). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ang, 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 accounting for routing of one cell when placing another cell. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placing and routing a plurality of cells. Ang teaches routing one cell before placing another cell to account for the routing of one cell when placing another cell. The teachings of Ang are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz’s placement and routing of cells would similarly route one cell before placing another cell to account for cell routing during placement.
Regarding claim 16, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose the APR algorithm comprises placing the second cell in the IC layout diagram after defining the first electrical connection. Ang discloses these limitations (Fig. 3, ¶35). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the APR algorithm comprises defining each of the first and second electrical connections after placing each of the first and second cells in the IC layout diagram. However, these limitations merely set forth how placement and routing is conventionally performed, as taught by Ang (¶6). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Ang, 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 placing and routing cells in the conventional manner. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placing and routing a plurality of cells. Ang teaches that routing is conventionally performed after placing the cells. The teachings of Ang are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz’s placement and routing of cells would similarly place cells and then route them in the conventional fashion.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Tseng (US 2014/0195997).
Regarding claim 10, Schultz discloses that the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and the computer program code are configured to, with the processor, cause the system to overlap both of the third and fourth metal segments with a via (Figs. 1-3, vias between any of Metal 0-3), but does not appear to explicitly disclose a slot via. Tseng discloses these limitations (¶27). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, and Tseng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine substitution of an element with a known equivalent according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of connecting metal lines using known via types. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing metal segments which are connected by vias. Tseng teaches that slot vias are a known type of via for connecting metal segments. The teachings of Tseng are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly connecting metal segments using known slot vias.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, Ray, Noguchi, and Tseng.
Regarding claim 20, Schultz discloses that each of the first and second electrical connections comprises a via between the third and fourth metal segments and/or a via between the fourth and fifth metal segments (Figs. 1-3, vias between any of Metal 0-3), but does not appear to explicitly disclose a slot via. Tseng discloses these limitations (¶27). 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 Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Sivakumar, Seyyedy, Cox, Ray, Noguchi, and Tseng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine substitution of an element with a known equivalent according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of connecting metal lines using known via types. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing metal segments which are connected by vias. Tseng teaches that slot vias are a known type of via for connecting metal segments. The teachings of Tseng are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly connecting metal segments using known slot vias.
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
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.
22 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights