DETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has submitted the following:
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 14-15 are pending examination;
Claims 4-6, and 12-13 remain cancelled;
Claims 1 and 14 are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that newly amended independent claim 1 and 14 do not recite mental processes. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amended limitation of the identification tool is executed “to crawl data structure across all connected nodes”, wherein the nodes are “in the order of thousands or more” cannot be performed as mental processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “crawling” of the data structure is a means of traversing the data structure (Specification page 4, “Optionally, wherein interrogating the circuit design description comprises traversing the circuit data structure. For instance, traversing the circuit data structure may include crawling the node connectivity representation.”). Crawling the data structure is an analytical process. Data crawling is a systemic process of collecting and indexing information, as evidenced by Williams (Williams, J. (2024, June 12). Crawling vs Scraping - the key differences. PromptCloud. https://www.promptcloud.com/blog/data-scraping-vs-data-crawling/ ):
“Data crawling, on the other hand, involves the automated process of systematically browsing the web or other sources to discover and index content. This process is typically performed by software tools called crawlers or spiders. Crawlers follow links and visit web pages, collecting information about the content, structure, and relationships between pages. The purpose of crawling is often to create an index or catalog of data, which can then be searched or analyzed”.
The collecting and analyzing information may be performed as mental processes. The use of a computer (or execution of software tools) to perform the mental processes does not make the recited claim patent eligible (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III: “As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”). The argument that the crawling cannot be performed by mental processes is not persuasive, because the steps of crawling are mental process steps performed by (not recited in the claims) “crawlers”, and thus a computer or software, are the mental processes performed using a computer as a tool or performed in a computer environment (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C).
Examiner notes that the recitation of the connected nodes to be crawled being “in the order of thousands or more” does not render the process unable to be performed by mental processes. The automation by a computer or software may enable the mental processes to be performed more quickly, but the recited claim still amounts to mental processes performed using a computer as a tool, performed in a computer environment, or performed with a physical aid, which is not distinguished from mental process performed by human mind (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III).
Applicant argues that the newly amended independent claims 1 and 14 integrate the mental processes into a practical application. Further, Applicant argues that said amended claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the recitations of “crawling” may be performed as mental processes. Claim 1, taken as a whole, amounts to steps of obtaining information, identifying, searching (e.g. crawling), and reporting the results. The claim does not include a transformation of a particular article to a different state, nor a use by a particular machine. Any alleged improvement to a computer or other technology would be an improvement in the abstract ideas, which is not patent eligible (MPEP 2106.05(a).II “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”.). Similar analysis applies to newly amended independent claim 14.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the recited claims amount to significantly more. The recited claims amount to mental processes, where the recited additional elements amount to generically recited computer. Any alleged “novelty” of the recited claims is in the abstract idea itself, which is not significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”; and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016): "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").
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 1-3, 7-11, 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for detecting a leakage current path in an integrated circuit using a detection system comprising a data interface, a processor, and an identification tool, the method comprising:
receiving at the data interface, a circuit design description of the integrated circuit wherein the circuit design description comprises a circuit data structure comprising a plurality of nodes connected via edges, wherein each node represents a circuit node or terminal of a circuit component, and each edge represents a circuit component; and wherein the plurality of connected nodes is in the order of thousands or more;
executing the identification tool to crawl the circuit data structure across all connected nodes and identify a set of candidate components having a first terminal coupled to a voltage source adapted to provide a voltage above a predefined value;
crawling each electronic component in the set to identify a second terminal coupled to ground; and
upon identification of the second terminal coupled to ground reporting a leakage path, wherein the set of candidate components comprises one or more switch devices having an isolation terminal and a drain terminal, and wherein the first terminal is an isolation terminal, and the second terminal is a drain terminal;
wherein the said one or more switch devices comprise a butted source terminal;
the method further comprising crawling the circuit data structure to identify a conductive path between the butted source terminal and ground and a second conductive path between the butted source terminal and a circuit port configured to receive a supply voltage; and
reporting a leakage path upon identification of at least one of the first conductive path and the second conductive path.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above; the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1 recites a process and is therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises process steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category.
In claim 1, the recited functions:
“receiving a circuit design description of the integrated circuit”;
“executing the identification tool to crawl the circuit data structure across all connected nodes and identify a set of candidate components”;
“crawling each electronic component in the set to identify a second terminal coupled to ground”;
“upon identification […] reporting a leakage path”;
“crawling the circuit data structure to identify a conductive path […] and a second conductive path”; and
“reporting a leakage path”
may be performed as mental processes. Receiving a design is collecting information. Crawling the circuit data structure and crawling each electronic component to identify a terminal are forms of analysis by collecting information. Reporting a leakage path is displaying results of the analysis. The type of high-level information collecting and analyzing data recited in these elements has been found by the Federal Circuit to constitute patent ineligible matter (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to the limitation “crawling the circuit data structure across all connected nodes”, such analysis of circuit data is known to be performed as mental processes for analog integrated circuits, as evidenced by Lienig (p. 153, “Analog circuits are generally less complex in terms of transistor count and are designed in a manual fashion. As many functional constraints must be considered here, the distinct lack of design automation and analog synthesis means that manual design is still widespread today.”; Fig. 4.24, Bottom-up design comprising “expert knowledge”; p.21, “To this day, designing analog ICs is mainly based on designer experience and has remained a primarily manual task.”; see Chapter 6 for specialized consideration for analog ICs.). Further, data crawling is a systemic process of collecting and indexing information, as evidenced by Williams (Williams, J. (2024, June 12). Crawling vs Scraping - the key differences. PromptCloud. https://www.promptcloud.com/blog/data-scraping-vs-data-crawling/ ):
“Data crawling, on the other hand, involves the automated process of systematically browsing the web or other sources to discover and index content. This process is typically performed by software tools called crawlers or spiders. Crawlers follow links and visit web pages, collecting information about the content, structure, and relationships between pages. The purpose of crawling is often to create an index or catalog of data, which can then be searched or analyzed”.
The collecting and analyzing information may be performed as mental processes. The utilization of automated processes (by way of computer or software tools) for the mental processes does not distinguish from the mental process being performed by the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III).
With regard to the claim limitation “wherein the plurality of connected nodes is in the order of thousands or more”, said limitation amounts to detailing the number of mental processes performed. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III. Regarding the instant application, although the size of the data set being received and analyzed is large and the use of a generic computer would surely speed up the analysis, there is nothing inherent to the claim that would prevent the abstract limitations from being performed by a human. For at least these reasons, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Similar reasoning is applied to independent claim 14.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether a claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1 applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most significant of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, claim 1 does not include any such improvements. Instead, claim 1 as a whole entails obtaining information (e.g. circuit design description); traversing a design to identify, identifying, and searching for specific elements therein (e.g. having a first terminal, a second terminal, etc.; and reporting the result of the interrogation (e.g. reporting a leakage path).
Regarding applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, claim 1 does not include any such improvements. Additional elements of “a detection system comprising a data interface, a processor, and a software engine” amount to a generic computer, and not a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, the judicial exception is not sufficiently integrated into a practical application. Further, “executing the identification tool to crawl” amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 1 do not include any such improvements. Instead, claim 1 as a whole entail obtaining information (e.g. circuit design description); interrogating to identify, identifying, and searching for specific elements therein (e.g. having a first terminal, a second terminal, etc.; and reporting the result of the interrogation (e.g. reporting a leakage path). Reporting the result is extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) and does not meaningfully effect a transformation.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the exception because they are generically recited (e.g. “a detection system comprising a data interface, a processor, and an identification tool”) and is activity (receiving circuit design, crawling the circuit data structure, identifying components, and reporting results) that would be well-known and conventional in the field. To qualify as an improvement in technology, and therefore pass the “significantly more” test, the improvement recited cannot be the judicial exception, i.e. abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”; and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016): "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). Any alleged improvement recited is an improvement in the abstract idea itself, and therefore does amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
Therefore independent claims 1 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7-11, and 15 provide additional features/steps which are part of the operations performed that includes the abstract idea of claim 1 (Step 2A Prong One). Claims 2, 3, 7-11, 13, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two), and each fails the “significantly more” test under Step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to claim 1.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 3, 7-11, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN BUTLER GEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Catherine 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.
/B.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863