amDETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, and 22-25 are pending, independent claims 1 and 23 and dependent claims 5, 15 and 18 are amended, claims 6, 8 and 21 are cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6-8, filed 01/09/2026 with respect to U.S.C 101 rejection of claims 1-25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection based on the amended claims are below.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is tied to a particular machine and is therefore eligible, specifically, claim 1 recites a semiconductor device comprising in-die-variation circuitry and a control apparatus.
Examiner noted in the rejection below, the limitations that are to an abstract idea. The inclusion of a semiconductor device comprising in-die-variation circuitry and a control apparatus does not make an abstract limitation non-abstract. In-die-variation circuitry is considered a well know field of use technology in which when applied to the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, a semiconductor device, and a control apparatus is a generic computer element and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea because the control apparatus uses generated measurement data to determine and repeatedly update a device-specific supply voltage.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the controller is implementing a specific solution in response to data, i.e., “repeatedly update a device-specific supply voltage”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The solution to the problem, as claimed by the applicant, must recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has examined the claims and has not found any elements that fulfill this requirement, the changing of voltage because data has been observed is not significantly more than an extra solution activity. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, is found not enough to be “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception in light of CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-12, filed on 01/09/2026, with respect to U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, and 22-25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oliva et al (US 9672310 B1) hereinafter Oliva and Graf et al (US 2015/0002217 A1) hereinafter Graf. does not teach all the limitations of the newly amended claims 1, and 23, specifically, Oliva and Graf does not cover the limitations determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage and update the device- specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device according to the schedule because Graf only discusses real time scheduled updates and is not clear on the periodicity of the timing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oliva teaches the periodicity of when the updates occur in col. 9 lines 20-23 “The acceleration factor generator 14 (i.e., part of the control apparatus) may generate a new AFi (i.e., value based on measurement data) on a periodic basis ( e.g. once every few seconds, one every few milliseconds, etc. in various embodiments) (i.e., repeatedly update) and/or responsive to stress factor alarms, as mentioned previously.” where “the reliability controller 16 may be configured to predict the supply voltage magnitude that will result in correct operation of the SOC 18 at the corresponding operating frequency (block 52).” Col. 9 line 27-30. ,Graf teaches determining a schedule for updating the device-supply voltage, which is further clarified with the new amended limitation the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device is updated according to the schedule in which when looking at [0034] “The high workload causes the voltage droop to exceed the selected threshold value, as indicated at 175. The voltage adjust function 169 provides a SELECT signal 172 to the selector device 151, directing the selector device 151 to choose a voltage input line 148 with a higher voltage in turn to adjust the local supply voltage 154 up, in order to meet the workload demand. Such voltage adjustment allows operating the logic at a higher frequency during peak workload conditions enabling maximum performance. Similarly, when the controller detects lower activity, it decreases the voltage to the region in order to reduce power dissipation.” It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the change in voltage due to a change in workload can be scheduled around when the change in workload occurs, not simply just real time, or one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that planning to change the voltage due to a change in workload in the real time that it is measured can indeed be part of the scheduling procedure. Furthermore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Oliva’s periodic updating and Graf’s change in voltage due to a change in workload, to create a periodic schedule as argued to be missing from the claims. However, there is no language in the claim limitation in which the scheduling of the voltage update needs to be periodic as the applicant is arguing. Limitations that are not claimed are not addressed by the rejection. For at least these reason, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A semi- conductor device comprising:
In-die-variation circuitry configured to generate measurement data related to the progress of aging of the semiconductor device:
a control apparatus is configured to:
Determine a device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data; and
Provide information on the device-specific supply voltage for a supply voltage control apparatus
wherein the control apparatus is configured to repeatedly update the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data, and to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage based on a difference between subsequently determined values of the device-specific supply voltage and update the device specific voltage of the semiconductor device according to the schedule.
Claim 23. A method for determining a device-specific supply voltage for a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
Obtaining measurement data from in-die-variation circuitry of the semiconductor de- vice, the measurement data being related to a progress of aging of the semiconductor device;
determining the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data; and
providing information on the device-specific supply voltage for a supply voltage control apparatus
wherein the control apparatus is configured to repeatedly update the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data, and to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage based on a difference between subsequently determined values of the device-specific supply voltage and the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device is updated according to the vehicle.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-24 are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a semiconductor device measurement circuitry, and control apparatus, are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
The additional element of obtain measurement data from the semiconductor device, the measurement data being related to a progress of aging of the semiconductor device; and provide information on the device-specific supply voltage for a supply voltage control apparatus is considered necessary data gathering and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element of in-die-variation circuitry is considered field of use technology in which when applied to the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element update the device specific voltage of the semiconductor device according to the schedule is considered extra solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 24 further recites the additional limitation of software being executed by a microcontroller. Claim 15 further recites the limitation of measurement circuitry. Claim 17 further recites the limitation of a machine learning model. Claim 22 further recites the limitations one of a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a computing accelerator, a network interface controller, a communication processor, a cellular communication processor, a baseband processor, a serialiser- deserialiser, a transceiver, a receiver, and a transmitter. Claim 25 further recites a machine-readable storage medium. These claims recite what is considered to be generic computer elements and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore claims 15, 17, 22, 24, and 25 are not patent eligible.
Claims 10- 12 further recites the limitation of a ring oscillator circuit. Claim 13 further recites the limitation of error counter circuitry. The additional elements in the claims are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (see below). Therefore claims 10-13 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 18-20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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, 10, 11, 14-16, 18-20, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliva et al (US 9672310 B1) in view of Graf et al (US 2015/0002217 A1) hereinafter Graf.
Regarding Claim 1, Oliva teaches semiconductor device (col 4 line 21-22 the semiconductor substrate in which the SOC 18 is fabricated”), in-die-variation circuitry configured to generate measurement data related to a progress of aging of the semiconductor device (col 4 lines 6-10 “The SOC 18 may further include one or more temperature sensors 32, and the device 10 may further include other temperature sensors such as the temperature sensor 34.”; where the temperature sensors are in-die-variation circuitry because col 3 lines 41-48 “The electrical device may have one or more operating parameters that are monitored to manage reliability. Operating parameters may be any data that represents the operating conditions of the device. Exemplary parameters may include one or more supply voltage magnitudes, one or more supply current magnitudes, one or more operating temperatures, one or more operating clock frequencies, etc.”; col 5 line 10-14, “The age guardband may increase faster for AF.sub.i greater than one and slower for AF.sub.i less than one. That is, strenuous use conditions (e.g. high voltages and/or temperatures) cause more aging than lighter stress use cases (lower voltages and/or temperatures).”; col. 4 line 43-48 “The acceleration factor generator 14 may receive the monitored parameters and may be configured to generate the instantaneous acceleration factor. The acceleration factor may represent how quickly the values of the monitored operating parameters (i.e., measurement data) may lead to aging effects in the SOC (system on chip) (i.e., semiconductor device) and/or end of life (failure) (i.e., progress of aging) of the device 10”); Control apparatus (col 4 line 4-6 “The SOC (i.e., control apparatus) 18 may include a memory controller 26, one or more processors 28, and one or more peripheral components 30.”), determine the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data ( “the monitored operating parameters (i.e., measurement data) for reliability management include the operating temperature (T) and supply voltage magnitude (V) (i.e., device specific supply voltage). The supply voltage magnitude may be the magnitude of the supply voltage to the SOC 18,” col. 4 line 10-14); and provide information on the device-specific supply voltage for a supply voltage control apparatus (“The supply voltage magnitude may be the magnitude of the supply voltage(i.e., information of the device specific supply voltage) to the SOC (i.e., supply voltage control apparatus) 18,” col. 4 line 10-14), wherein the control apparatus is configured to repeatedly update the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data (“The acceleration factor generator 14 (i.e., part of the control apparatus) may generate a new AFi (i.e., value based on measurement data) on a periodic basis ( e.g. once every few seconds, one every few milliseconds, etc. in various embodiments) (i.e., repeatedly update) and/or responsive to stress factor alarms, as mentioned previously.” Col. 9 line 20-23, where “the reliability controller 16 may be configured to predict the supply voltage magnitude that will result in correct operation of the SOC 18 at the corresponding operating frequency (block 52).” Col. 9 line 27-30), and a difference between subsequently determined values of the device-specific supply voltage (“The reliability controller 16 may be configured to update the accumulated age in the age data 36 responsive to the 25 received AFi (i.e., (block 50) (i.e., subsequent value).” Col. 9 line 25-26 where “the generated guardband (i.e., added supply voltage) may be additional guardband (i.e., there is a difference between the two subsequent supply voltages) since the currently-requested supply voltage magnitude includes previously generated guardband.” Col. 9 line 48-51).
Oliva does not teach to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage, update the device-specific voltage of the semiconductor device according to the schedule.
Graf teaches to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage ([0006] “The control circuit tracks variations in the voltage over time. Responsive to the variations in the voltage exceeding a threshold, the control circuit enables the selector device to (i.e., schedules and update to) choose a different voltage input line to adjust the voltage up or down.” Where when the voltage is determined to surpass a limit, and update is scheduled to change the voltage accordingly.) update the device-specific voltage of the semiconductor device according to the schedule ([0034] “The high workload causes the voltage droop to exceed the selected threshold value, as indicated at 175. The voltage adjust function 169 provides a SELECT signal 172 to the selector device 151, directing the selector device 151 to choose a voltage input line 148 with a higher voltage in turn to adjust the local supply voltage 154 up, in order to meet the workload demand. Such voltage adjustment allows operating the logic at a higher frequency during peak workload conditions enabling maximum performance. Similarly, when the controller detects lower activity, it decreases the voltage to the region in order to reduce power dissipation.” Where the voltage is changed according to the schedule of usage (i.e., high workload or low workload)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the updating of the device-specific supply to schedule as discussed in Graf to the apparatus discussed in Oliva for the purpose of updating the voltage as the fatigue crosses a threshold requiring adjustment. This is advantageous because as the fatigue of a semiconductor passes the threshold of allowability, the monitoring apparatus can schedule the voltage to be updated.
Regarding Claim 23, Oliva teaches obtaining measurement data from in-die-variation circuitry of the semiconductor device (“The operating temperature (i.e., measurement data) may be measured (e.g. via temperature sensors (i.e., in-die-variation circuitry)32 and/or 34),” col. 4 line 18-19, where the “SOC (system on chip, i.e., semiconductor device) 18 may further include one or more temperature sensors 32” col. 4 line 6-7), the measurement data being related to a progress of aging of the semiconductor device (“the values of the monitored operating parameters (i.e., measurement data) may lead to aging effects in the SOC (system on chip) (i.e., semiconductor device) and/or end of life (failure) (i.e., progress of aging) of the device 10” col. 4 line 46-48); determining the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data ( “the monitored operating parameters (i.e., measurement data) for reliability management include the operating temperature (T) and supply voltage magnitude (V) (i.e., device specific supply voltage). The supply voltage magnitude may be the magnitude of the supply voltage to the SOC 18,” col. 4 line 10-14); and providing information on the device-specific supply voltage for a supply voltage control apparatus (“The supply voltage magnitude may be the magnitude of the supply voltage(i.e., information of the device specific supply voltage) to the SOC (i.e., supply voltage control apparatus) 18,” col. 4 line 10-14), wherein the control apparatus is configured to repeatedly update the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on the measurement data (“The acceleration factor generator 14 (i.e., part of the control apparatus) may generate a new AFi (i.e., value based on measurement data) on a periodic basis ( e.g. once every few seconds, one every few milliseconds, etc. in various embodiments) (i.e., repeatedly update) and/or responsive to stress factor alarms, as mentioned previously.” Col. 9 line 20-23, where “the reliability controller 16 may be configured to predict the supply voltage magnitude that will result in correct operation of the SOC 18 at the corresponding operating frequency (block 52).” Col. 9 line 27-30), and a difference between subsequently determined values of the device-specific supply voltage (“The reliability controller 16 may be configured to update the accumulated age in the age data 36 responsive to the 25 received AFi (i.e., (block 50) (i.e., subsequent value).” Col. 9 line 25-26 where “the generated guardband (i.e., added supply voltage) may be additional guardband (i.e., there is a difference between the two subsequent supply voltages) since the currently-requested supply voltage magnitude includes previously generated guardband.” Col. 9 line 48-51).
Oliva does not teach to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage, and the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device is updated according to the schedule.
Graf teaches to determine a schedule for updating the device-specific supply voltage ([0006] “The control circuit tracks variations in the voltage over time. Responsive to the variations in the voltage exceeding a threshold, the control circuit enables the selector device to (i.e., schedules and update to) choose a different voltage input line to adjust the voltage up or down.” Where when the voltage is determined to surpass a limit, and update is scheduled to change the voltage accordingly.),and the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device is updated according to the schedule([0034] “The high workload causes the voltage droop to exceed the selected threshold value, as indicated at 175. The voltage adjust function 169 provides a SELECT signal 172 to the selector device 151, directing the selector device 151 to choose a voltage input line 148 with a higher voltage in turn to adjust the local supply voltage 154 up, in order to meet the workload demand. Such voltage adjustment allows operating the logic at a higher frequency during peak workload conditions enabling maximum performance. Similarly, when the controller detects lower activity, it decreases the voltage to the region in order to reduce power dissipation.” Where the voltage is changed according to the schedule of usage (i.e., high workload or low workload)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the updating of the device-specific supply to schedule as discussed in Graf to the apparatus discussed in Oliva for the purpose of updating the voltage as the fatigue crosses a threshold requiring adjustment. This is advantageous because as the fatigue of a semiconductor passes the threshold of allowability, the monitoring apparatus can schedule the voltage to be updated.
Regarding Claim 2, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the device-specific supply voltage is based on the progress of aging of the semiconductor device, with the progress of aging being based on an individual aging process of the semiconductor device in the field (“the reliability controller 16 may predict an additional amount of supply voltage magnitude for the SOC 18 to account for aging related wear (i.e., voltage based on the progress of aging) (e.g. V r shift), so that the SOC 18 and thus the electrical device 10 may continue to operate (i.e., in the field) correctly at a specified operating frequency in the presence of aging experienced (i.e., progress of aging) by the SOC 18.” col. 4 line 64 – col. 5 line 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to increase the device-specific supply voltage as the aging of the semiconductor device progresses (“As age is tracked over time by the reliability controller 16, the age guardband may increase.” Col. 5 line 8-10 where “The amount of additional supply voltage magnitude may be referred to as "age guardband."” Col. 5 line 3-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the progress of aging of the semiconductor device is based on a utilization of the semiconductor device, with the measurement data reflecting the utilization of the semiconductor device (“The age guardband may increase faster for AFi (acceleration factor) greater than one and slower for AFi less than one. That is, strenuous use conditions (e.g., high voltages and/or temperatures) cause more aging than lighter stress use cases (lower voltages and/or temperatures) (i.e., progress of aging based on utilization).” Col. 5 line 10-14, where “The acceleration factor generator 14 may receive the monitored parameters (i.e., measured data) and may be configured to generate the instantaneous acceleration factor.” Col. 4 line 43-45).
Regarding Claim 5, Oliva and Graf teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the device-specific supply voltage is specific to the semiconductor device comprising the in-die-variation circuitry (“The supply voltage magnitude may be the magnitude of the supply voltage to the SOC 18 (i.e., semiconductor device).” Col. 4 line 13-15, where “The SOC 18 may include a memory controller 26, one or more processors 28, and one or more peripheral components 30. The SOC 18 may further include one or more temperature sensors 32, and the device 10 may further include other temperature sensors such as the temperature sensor 34 (i.e., in-die-variation circuitry)” col. 4 line 4-9).
Regarding Claim 7, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to update the device-specific supply voltage according to a pre-defined schedule (“The acceleration factor generator 14 may generate the AF, at regular intervals (i.e., predefined schedule) and/or may be triggered in response to stressful use conditions (e.g., high temperature).” Col. 6 line 13-16).
Regarding Claim 10, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the measurement data comprises measurement data related to one or more ring oscillator circuit arrangements of the semiconductor device (“The frequency (i.e., measurement data) of the ring oscillator may be a measure of how quickly the critical path evaluates.” Col 8. Line 19-20)
Regarding Claim 11, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 10. wherein the measurement data related to one or more ring oscillator circuit arrangements (“The frequency (i.e., measurement data) of the ring oscillator may be a measure of how quickly the critical path evaluates.” Col 8. Line 19-20) corresponds to measurement data related to a plurality of ring oscillator circuit arrangements being arranged at a plurality of different portions of the semiconductor device (“The age tracking circuits 38 may be designed to mimic critical paths in the SOC 18 (i.e., plurality of different portions of the semiconductor device), and may be measured to determine the aging effects that have accumulated in the SOC 18. For example, the age tracking circuits 38 may construct the critical path mimics as ring oscillators (i.e., plurality of ring oscillator circuit arrangements).” Col 8 line 14-19).
Regarding Claim 14, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to discard measurement data gathered during the activation of an accelerated state of the semiconductor device, or to preempt the semiconductor device from activating the accelerated state while the measurement data is gathered (“The reliability controller may accumulate credit during periods of low stress and may allow that credit to be consumed in periods of high stress (i.e., discard measurement data gathered during the activations of an accelerated state) before controlling the device 10 to prevent premature failure.” Col 6 line 35-39).
Regarding Claim 15, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches, wherein the measurement data is based on a plurality of different units of in-die-variation circuitry of the semiconductor device (“the monitored operating parameters for reliability management include the operating temperature (T) and supply voltage magnitude (V).” col 4 line 10-12; “The operating temperature (i.e., measurement data) may be measured (e.g. via temperature sensors (i.e., in-die-variation circuitry)32 and/or 34),” col. 4 line 18-19, where the “SOC (system on chip, i.e., semiconductor device) 18 may further include one or more temperature sensors 32” col. 4 line 6-7),), wherein the control apparatus is configured to determine the device-specific supply voltage of the semiconductor device based on a weighing factor for weighing a contribution of measurement data of the plurality of different units of in-die-variation circuitry (“Based on the instantaneous acceleration factors measured over time and an SOC-specific age model 12, the reliability controller 16 (i.e., control apparatus) may predict an additional amount of supply voltage magnitude (i.e., specific supply voltage) for the SOC 18,” col 4 line 63-66 where “the acceleration factor generator 14 may receive the monitored parameters and may be configured to generate the instantaneous acceleration factor (i.e., weighing factor).” Col. 4 line 43-45 and “the acceleration factor may be normalized to nominal values for the operating parameters (i.e., weighing the contributions of the measurement data to targets)” col. 4 line 48-50; col 5 line 10-14, “The age guardband may increase faster for AF.sub.i greater than one and slower for AF.sub.i less than one. That is, strenuous use conditions (e.g. high voltages and/or temperatures) cause more aging than lighter stress use cases (lower voltages and/or temperatures).”).
Regarding Claim 16, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 15. Oliva further teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to adapt the weighing factor based on a context in which the measurement data has been determined (“the acceleration factor generator 14 is coupled to receive one or more operating parameters (i.e., adapt based on context in which the measurement data was determined) from the device 10 and is configured to generate an instantaneous acceleration factor (i.e., weighing factor) (AFi)” col. 3 line 56-59).
Regarding Claim 18, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitation of claim 15. Oliva further teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to identify one or more performance critical circuits of the semiconductor device (“Other operating temperatures may include the external temperature of the SOC 18 (e.g. the temperature of the package of the SOC 18), the temperature of other components such as the PMU 22, the peripheral devices 24, the device 10 as a whole, etc.) (i.e., identifying one or more performance critical circuits to track the temperature of)” col 4 line 23-27), and to adapt the weighing factor with respect to in-die-variation circuitry being used to characterize the one or more performance critical circuits (“the acceleration factor generator 14 is coupled to receive one or more operating parameters (i.e., adapt with respect to measurement circuitry) from the device 10 and is configured to generate an instantaneous acceleration factor (i.e., weighing factor) (AFi)” col. 3 line 56-59; col 5 line 10-14, “The age guardband may increase faster for AF.sub.i greater than one and slower for AF.sub.i less than one. That is, strenuous use conditions (e.g. high voltages and/or temperatures) cause more aging than lighter stress use cases (lower voltages and/or temperatures).”).
Regarding Claim 19, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 15. Oliva further teaches wherein the measurement data comprises at least two different types of measurement data (“the monitored operating parameters for reliability management include the operating temperature (T) and supply voltage magnitude (V).” col 4 line 10-12).
Regarding Claim 20, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the measurement data comprises a plurality of samples of measurement data, wherein the control apparatus is configured to determine a median or average of samples (“Combinations of various operating temperatures (i.e., plurality of samples of measurement data) may be used (e.g., an average of several measured temperatures from different points in the device 10),” col 4 line 28-30), and to determine the device-specific supply voltage based on the median or average of samples (“instantaneous acceleration factors measured over time and an SOC-specific age model 12, the reliability controller 16 may predict an additional amount of supply voltage magnitude for the SOC,” col. 4 line 63-66 where the “acceleration factor generator 14 may receive the monitored parameters (i.e., measurement data) and may be configured to generate the instantaneous acceleration factor” col. 4 line 43-45).
Regarding Claim 25, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 23. Oliva further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including program code, when executed, to cause a machine to perform the method (“The computer accessible storage medium 200 in FIG. 9 may store code forming the reliability controller 16 and/or the acceleration factor generator 14.” Col. 10 line 41-43 where “The reliability controller 16 may include instructions which, when executed by the processor 28, implement the operation described for the reliability controller 16 above.” Col 10 line 45-48).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliva and Graf in view of McCormack et al., (US 2013/0308501 A1) hereinafter McCormack.
Regarding Claim 22, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oliva further teaches wherein the semiconductor device is one of a central processing unit (“processor cores and/or microprocessors” col. 7 line 13), a graphics processing unit (“graphics processing units” col 7 line 19-20), a computing accelerator, a network interface controller (“Network peripherals” col 7 line 34), a communication processor (“radio chips for wireless local-area networking (WLAN or "WiFi ™"), cellular communications,” col 7 line 63-65), a cellular communication processor (“radio chips for wireless local-area networking (WLAN or "WiFi ™"), cellular communications,” col 7 line 63-65), a baseband processor (“radio chips” col 7 line 63-64).
Oliva and Graf does not teach a serialiser-deserialiser, a transceiver, a receiver, and a transmitter.
McCormack teaches a serialiser-deserialiser (“a serializer/deserializer circuit (SERDES) 522,” [0046], fig. 6), a transceiver (“transceiver 508,” fig. 6), a receiver (“the receiver 214,” [0046],), and a transmitter(“the transmitter 212,” [0046], )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the serialiser-deserialiser, a transceiver, a receiver, and a transmitter discussed in McCormack to the semiconductor device discussed in Oliva and Graf for the purpose of having a semiconductor device that is a communication device or has communication capabilities. This gives the advantage of allowing the devices to be able communicate with increased functionality, and have the ability to communicate/process and manage larger amounts of data at higher speeds (e.g., [0002-0003], McCormack).
Claim(s) 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliva and Graf in view of Toosizadeh et al. (WO 2021/035229 A2) hereinafter Toosizadeh.
Regarding Claim 17, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Oliva teaches to adapt the weighing factor with one or more features representing the context being used as input (“the acceleration factor generator 14 is coupled to receive one or more operating parameters (i.e., adapt based on context in which the measurement data was determined) from the device 10 and is configured to generate an instantaneous acceleration factor (i.e., weighing factor) (AFi)” col. 3 line 56-59).
Oliva and Graf does not teach the control apparatus is configured to use the output of a machine-learning model.
Toosizadeh teaches the control apparatus is configured to use the output of a machine-learning model (“The correlation information (i.e., weighing factor) may be maintained in one or more of a lookup table, an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, a machine learning (ML) engine, etc.,” [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the machine learning model as discussed in Toosizadeh to the control apparatus discussed in Oliva and Graf for the purpose of processing the measurement data. This gives the advantage of increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the data measurement collections and calculation.
Regarding Claim 24, Oliva teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Oliva does not teach wherein the method is implemented by software being executed on a microcontroller.
Toosizadeh teaches wherein the method is implemented by software being executed on a microcontroller (“Processor 404 may include any appropriate type of general-purpose or special- purpose microprocessor, digital signal processor, or microcontroller.” [0074] where “Memory 406 and/or storage 408 may be configured to store one or more computer programs that may be executed by processor 404” [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the micro controller discussed in Toosizadeh with the control apparatus discussed in Oliva for the purpose of scaling down the size of the apparatus being used. This gives the advantage of reduced power consumption of the subsystem (e.g., [0002], Toosizadeh).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliva and Graf in view of Manna et al. (US 20040051553 A1) hereinafter Manna
Regarding Claim 9, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Oliva and Graf does not teach to limit a difference between subsequently provided values that are provided as part of the information.
Manna teaches to limit a difference between subsequently provided values that are provided as part of the information (“The designer will determine the difference (i-j) where degradation indicates a reliability issue and the circuit will then generate an end-of-life signal if (i-j) exceeds a certain predetermined limit.” [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combined the limiting of a difference discussed in Manna to the control apparatus discussed in Oliva and Graf for the purpose of defining when the difference between the supply voltages have exceeded the capabilities of the control apparatus. This gives the advantage of having a test designed to predict, monitor and communicate when the degradation reaches a prescribed limit and is at end-of-life (e.g., [0006], Manna).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliva and Graf in view of Raja et al. (US 20140312873 A1) hereinafter Raja
Regarding Claim 12, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitation of claim 10.
Oliva and Graf does not teach wherein the measurement data related to one or more ring oscillator circuit arrangements corresponds to measurement data related to one or more pairs of ring oscillator circuit arrangements with each pair of ring oscillator circuit arrangements comprising a first ring oscillator circuit arrangement having a performance being dependent on the progress of aging of the semiconductor device, and a second oscillator circuitry being at least partially safeguarded from the progress of aging of the semiconductor device.
Raja teaches wherein the measurement data related to one or more ring oscillator circuit arrangements corresponds to measurement data related to one or more pairs of ring oscillator circuit arrangements with each pair of ring oscillator circuit arrangements comprising a first ring oscillator circuit arrangement having a performance being dependent on the progress of aging of the semiconductor device, and a second oscillator circuitry being at least partially safeguarded from the progress of aging of the semiconductor device (“Because the aging unit 204 is powered when the circuit components 106 are operating, the aging unit 204 experiences an amount of aging (i.e., dependent on aging) that is comparable to the aging that the transistors within the circuit components 106 experience. On the other hand, because the non-aging unit 206 is only powered when the aging monitor controller 104 decides to measure aging (i.e., measurement data), the non-aging unit 206 experiences little aging (i.e., partially safeguarded from aging).” [0026], where “the aging unit 204 and the non-aging unit 206 are both ring oscillators (i.e., pair of ring oscillators)” [0027] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the pair of ring oscillators discussed in Raja to the controller apparatus discussed in Oliva and Graf for the purpose of monitoring and adjusting the voltages effected by aging in a device. This gives the advantage of allowing a margined circuit (circuit that is not at end of life) the ability to adjust the voltage supplied within its means and consume less power or operate faster even with aging effecting the voltage (e.g., [0005-0006], Raja).
Regarding Claim 13, Oliva and Graf teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Oliva and Graf does not teach wherein the measurement data comprises measurement data related to an error counter circuitry of the semiconductor device
Raja teaches wherein the measurement data comprises measurement data related to an error counter circuitry of the semiconductor device (“The error unit 212 determines a difference between the count in the first counter unit 208 and the count in the second counter unit 210 and transmits this difference (i.e., measurement data) to the voltage offset unit 224 in error unit output 228.” [0032]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the error counter circuitry discussed in Raja to the controller apparatus discussed in Oliva for the purpose of monitoring and adjusting the voltages effected by aging in a device, when aging is only slight effecting the device. This gives the advantage of allowing a margined circuit (circuit that is not at end of life) the ability to adjust the voltage supplied within its means and consume less power or operate faster even with aging effecting the voltage (e.g., [0005-0006], Raja).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857