DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 01/14/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 19-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with reference to the rejection under 35 USC 101. The art rejection has been withdrawn. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “Applicant respectfully points out that the Examiner seems to have misconstrued the nature of the claimed invention, since it should be clear upon fully comprehending the claimed invention that the invention improves the performance of a system that generates netlists for the production of integrated circuits (i.e., a technology). Accordingly, Applicant contends that, as dictated by the flowchart provided in the MPEР and by MPEP section 2106.06, the question of whether a judicial exception is recited in the claims should not be addressed at all, since the eligibility of the claims is self-evident because the claims clearly improve a technology.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims, as currently amended, clearly directed to abstract idea and do not in any way provide any improvement whatsoever to another technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by performing the steps set forth in the claims. The Examiner maintain that even with the term improvement plainly showing, said improvement would only apply to Applicants’ method and not the computer processor in general, i.e., when other computer applications are executed, they would not have benefited from the same improvement that Applicants intended to have produced. Therefore, the claims are abstract, contrary to applicant’s assertions. With regards to Applicant’s arguments citing “DDR Holdings, Enfish, and McRO”, the Examiner maintains that the claims at issue are totally different than that of the cited cases, as the facts patterns simply do not match. For instance, in Enfish, there was a data structure that allowed for faster access to data in a database, the claimed embodiments in Applicants case do not in any manner improve data access by making take less time in the manner that the claims in the Enfish do. McRO involved morph weights being applied to animated characters in order to lip sync dialog to animated characters, Applicants claimed embodiments do not even include a displaying step. Similarly, the DDR Holdings case is clearly not applicable to the instant case, the claimed embodiments in Applicants claims do not in any manner improve the improvement provided in the cited cases by the applicant. Therefore, the claims are abstract, contrary to applicant’s assertions. As per applicant’s assertions under step 2A that: “While the generating of the HDL netlist is performed on a computer, by necessity, due to the complexity of the effort, and so by nature of the way computers work, generating an HDL netlist (as wells the methods of Enfish and McCro) can be reduced to manipulation of ones and zeros, generating an HDL netlist is significantly more than just an application of a mathematical operation (i.e., concept or relationship). Thus, in addition to the reasons above, the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims manipulate data structures or objects that are analogous to data structures (the C1Cn model, the CCSN). And further cited example 38”, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims dot not recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception and that the mere recitation of a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785. As previously stated above with regards the Enfish and McRO cases, the instant claims are totally different than that of the cited cases, and similarly example 38, nor any other example cited by the applicants, which provides for simulating of an analog circuit representation, contrary to applicants. Further, in Enfish, there was a data structure that allowed for faster access to data in a database, the claimed embodiments in Applicants case do not in any manner improve data access by making take less time in the manner that the claims in the Enfish do. McRO involved morph weights being applied to animated characters in order to lip sync dialog to animated characters, Applicants claimed embodiments do not even include a displaying step. As per applicant’s assertions that: “The Applicant argued that the recited method is too complex to be performed as a mental process. Consequently, claim 1 neither recites a mathematical concept nor a mental process.”, the Examiner respectfully notes that clearly directed to an abstract idea, contrary to applicant’s assertion, and do not recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785. Applicant appears to further repeat the argument with regards to improvement, and thus, inherit the same response as fully addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5.1 Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and system (claims 1, 19, and 23), comprising: The step of: “determining first receiver capacitance values for a receiver cell of an integrated circuit design from a multi-segment receiver model (C1Cn) model, at a condition”; “determining difference values for differences between the first receiver capacitance values of the integrated circuit and the second receiver capacitance values of the integrated circuit”, “adjusting, by the processing device, calibration factor values iteratively to adjust the parameters of the CCSN model until the difference values are within an acceptable range”, “generating a hardware description language (HDL) netlist of the integrated circuit design, based on the calibration factor values that result in the difference values being within the acceptable range, the generated HDL netlist being an improvement”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship or otherwise could fall under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a memory” storing “instructions”, “a processor”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0054-57, and fig.8) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; The step of: “extracting second receiver capacitance values of the integrated circuit design based on a Composite Current Source for Noise (CCSN) model of the integrated circuit design at the condition, wherein the CCSN model has three parameters: (a) a Miller capacitance parameter, (b) a current parameter which is a function of a relationship between a first voltage and a second voltage, and (c) a pin capacitance parameter”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering activities that are pre-solution activities and the step of “providing the generated HDL netlist of the integrated circuit design for manufacturing of an improved integrated circuit” could amount to post-solution action and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and thus do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; therefore are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a memory” storing “instructions”, “a processor”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0054-57, and fig.8) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; The step of: “extracting second receiver capacitance values of the integrated circuit design based on a Composite Current Source for Noise (CCSN) model of the integrated circuit design at the condition, wherein the CCSN model has three parameters: (a) a Miller capacitance parameter, (b) a current parameter which is a function of a relationship between a first voltage and a second voltage, and (c) a pin capacitance parameter”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering activities that are pre-solution activities and the step of “providing the generated HDL netlist of the integrated circuit design for manufacturing of an improved integrated circuit” could amount to post-solution action and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. It is further noted: to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, and 20-22 merely include limitations pertaining to: (claim 2) “wherein the receiver cell has a Miller capacitance, and wherein the Miller capacitance parameter represents the Miller capacitance of the receiver”, (claim 3) “wherein the receiver cell has pin capacitance and the pin capacitance parameter represents the pin capacitance of the receiver”, (claim 4) “wherein the receiver cell has a cell current that is the function of the first voltage and the second voltage, and a value parameter has represents the current of the receiver” [merely data gathering or otherwise a mental process], (claim 6) “wherein the first voltage is at the receiver cell at an input side of the Miller capacitance and the second voltage is at the receiver cell output side of Miller capacitance” [data gathering and processing or otherwise a mental process]; (claims 7 and 20) “determining third receiver capacitance values for the receiver cell after the model of the receiver cell has been calibrated, the third receiver capacitance values being determined from the CCSN model under conditions used to extract the first receiver capacitance values for the C1Cn model; determining a residual difference between the first receiver capacitance values and the third receiver capacitance values; determining an adjustment value for the third receiver capacitance values based on the residual difference between the first receiver capacitance values and the second receiver capacitance value” [mathematical concept or otherwise could reasonably fall under a mental process]; and “storing the adjustment value” [is also well-known, routine and conventional post-solution activities to store data in a memory and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f)]; (claim 8) “wherein the receiver cell is calibrated by applying the calibration factor values to respective parameters of the CCSN model”, (claim 9) “wherein applying the calibration factor values includes multiplying the calibration factor values by the respective parameters of the CCSN model to obtain calibrated parameters” [mathematical concept or otherwise could fall within post-solution activities], note: to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965, (claim 21) “the integrated circuit design including cells, which include the receiver cell and a driver cell, the receiver cell receiving input from the driver cell, the cells of the integrated circuit design being associated with data maintained in a timing library that is shared by the ClCn model and the driver cell” [data gathering and processing or otherwise a mental process], all of which further amount to mental process and otherwise mathematical concept; (claim 22); “wherein the generated HDL netlist is an improvement over an HDL netlist generated based only on the CICn model and over an HDL netlist generated based only on the CSCN model”, [mental process or otherwise a otherwise mathematical concept] similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6.1 Sattiraju et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 20170004238-A1) teaches methods and systems for modeling input capacitance for a component of an electronic circuit design to accurately and quickly analyze the performance of the circuit.
7. Claims 1-9, 19-21 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached on 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 January 30, 2026