DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is made in response to the communication filed July 20, 2026. Claims 1-8 and 36-46 are presented for examination. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn.
The drawings are objected to for lacking clarity and failing to illustrate the claimed subject matter.
Claim 36 is objected to for minor informalities. Claims 39-46 would be allowable if not for the objection to claim 36.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as reciting new matter.
Claims 36-46 are allowable over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b): The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC 101: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Art: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
The independent claims recite two state-value neural networks. The first outputs a state value that is not used in the claims. The second has no specified input (clarified in claim 46) and outputs state values that are not used in the claims. This is neither a rejection nor an objection, but the Applicant may wish to amend independent claim 36 to improve the logical connectivity within the claim. Removal of these elements is not advised, as the current allowability over the art is in consideration of these elements, as recited.
Drawings
Unclear FIG. 11
FIG. 11 is not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Drawings Failing To Illustrate The Claimed Embodiment
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claims currently recite two different reinforcement learning models (RLs) connected by a genetic algorithm. The first RL includes: a graph neural network (GNN) for processing a graph; a first policy network that takes node embeddings from the GNN and generates action probabilities identifying a next placement; and a first state-value neural network that takes node embeddings from the GNN and generates a state value associated with the next placement (with no indication of what the state value is used for within the claims or the drawings, that should be illustrated, hereinafter referred to as mystery element #1). An unidentified intermediate processing element (that should be illustrated, hereinafter referred to as mystery element #2) iteratively selects device placement actions (hereinafter referred to as mystery elements #3) in accordance with the action probabilities to generate an initial placed circuit layout. Then, the genetic algorithm receives the generated initial placed circuit layout to generate a plurality of candidate routed circuit layouts. Then, the second RL model includes: a convolutional neural network (CNN) that takes the plurality of candidate routed circuit layouts as input and generates state embeddings from an image representation (hereinafter, mystery element #4) of the candidate routed circuit layout (the image representation generated by a missing mystery element #5, not in the claims but should be illustrated in the drawings); a second policy neural network that transforms the state embeddings into action probabilities corresponding to routing modifications; and a second state-value neural network configured to generate state values corresponding to routing states (for which the claim is silent as to the input into this model or what the output does, summarily referred to as mystery elements #6). Then another mystery element (hereinafter, mystery element #7) incrementally modifies touring segments within the candidate routed circuit layouts according to the action probabilities (corresponding to routing modifications) to reduce errors. Then another mystery element (hereinafter, mystery element #8) selects a final circuit layout from among the candidate layouts. There is currently no figure that illustrates this implementation of the networks, even if there is scattered support for each element in the specification, making it difficult for a person of ordinary skill in the art to find the descriptive material in the specification that discloses the claimed embodiment. This is likely a reason for the confusion that led to claims 37-38 reciting new matter.
Therefore, the Applicant must illustrate in a drawing or by annotated connections between multiple drawings, both RL models, the genetic algorithm model, and all connections between the models with intermediate determinations passed therebetween. These should include the identified mystery elements, even if the mystery elements are identified in the figures by descriptive titles representing the mystery elements’ functions. These elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is believed that there is support for the independent claim in the specification, but support from the original specification should be provided for any new figure(s) and associated descriptions.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 36 recites, “[…] incrementally modifying routing segments within the candidate routed circuit layouts according to the action probabilities to reduce design rule constraint errors […].” However, the claim recites both “action probabilities identifying a next placement of one or more semiconductor devices on a circuit layout” and “action probabilities corresponding to routing modifications.” It is unclear to which action probabilities the “incrementally modifying step” applies. The Applicant can overcome this by amending to clarify antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 recites, “wherein selecting the final circuit layout comprises evaluating the candidate routed circuit layouts according to a fitness function comprising at least a number of remaining design rule constraint errors.” However, as taught in the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0070]-[0074] and [0078]-[0085], the fitness function is used to evolve the genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm, under the terms of the claim and consistent with the language of the specification, is tasked exclusively with “processing the placed circuit layout […] to generate a plurality of candidate routed circuit layouts.” This is substantively different from the claim’s recitation that selecting the final circuit layout comprises evaluating the candidate routed circuit layouts according to a fitness function comprising at least a number of remaining design rule constraint errors.” Accordingly, claim 37 recites new matter.
Claim 38 is rejected based on its dependence from claim 37 and based on its recitation of the fitness function that claim 37 states is a part of selecting the final circuit layout.
Claims Allowable Over Art
Claims 36-46 are allowable over the art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The limitation(s) of the claim include,
[…]
processing the graph representation through a first reinforcement learning model comprising:
a graph neural network configured to generate node embeddings for the nodes;
a first policy neural network coupled to receive the node embeddings and configured to generate action probabilities identifying a next placement of one or more semiconductor devices on a circuit layout; and
a first state-value neural network coupled to receive the node embeddings and configured to generate a state value associated with a current placement state;
iteratively selecting device-placement actions according to the action probabilities to generate a placed circuit layout;
processing the placed circuit layout through a genetic router to generate a plurality of candidate routed circuit layouts;
processing each candidate routed circuit layout through a second reinforcement learning model comprising:
a convolutional neural network configured to generate state embeddings from an image representation of the candidate routed circuit layout;
a second policy neural network configured to transform the state embeddings into action probabilities corresponding to routing modifications; and
a second state-value neural network configured to generate state values corresponding to routing states;
incrementally modifying routing segments within the candidate routed circuit layouts according to the action probabilities to reduce design rule constraint errors;
[…]
in combination with the remaining limitations
The closest prior art references of record are Liao, Goldie, and DeepLizard. Liao discloses using a combination of reinforcement learning and a genetic algorithm to determine routing. While the recitation is similar, the structure of the reinforcement learning model differs from the reinforcement learning models of the claims that recite a quasi-Actor-Critic network (outputs both probabilities and values from separate neural network elements). Goldie uses a reinforcement learning for placement on a poly, but the RL model is structured differently from the quasi-Actor-Critic network of the claims. The DeepLizard reference of record teaches several specific model architectures that could be used in the claimed networks. Further, the Alipour, Filipic, Moriarty, Qi, and Shapiro references teach the use of genetic algorithms with reinforcement learning models for different applications. The Bengio, Ho, Steiner, and newly introduced to the record Mirhoseini references teach different RL methods for circuit routing and/or placement. The Applicant’s White Paper and a newly introduced to the record, contemporaneous (non-prior art) Yen review article on reinforcement learning for circuit design have also been provided to demonstrate the state of the art at the time of filing.
The references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the use of a first quasi-Actor-Critic RL model to generate state embeddings to determine action probabilities and state values from embeddings generated from a graph neural network from a graph model, the determination of a placed circuit layout based on the action probabilities, the use of a genetic algorithm to generate candidate routes, the use of a second quasi-Actor-Critic RL model to generate state embeddings to determine action probabilities and state values from image depictions generated by a convolutional neural network from the candidate routes, and the use of the action probabilities to modify route segments to reduce design constraint errors, in combination with the all of the remaining limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight. Therefore, claim(s) 36-46 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
