DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on December 10, 2025. Claims 2, 8 and 16 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 4-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application
The rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn based on the amendments to the independent claims filed December 10, 2025 that incorporated subject matter that was previous indicated as overcoming the prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 14, 2025, with the exception of the 112(b) rejection provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, which cites “enable the simulation device establish” in Ln. 6, should be “enable the simulation device to establish”. Claims 17-19 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 15. Claim 20, having similar limitations of claim 15, is also objected.
Claim 15, which cites “enable the simulation device determine” in Ln. 12, should be “enable the simulation device to determine”. Claims 17-19 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 15. Claim 20, having similar limitations of claim 15, is also objected.
Claim 15, which cites “enable the simulation device perform” in Ln. 16, should be “enable the simulation device to perform”. Claims 17-19 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 15. Claim 20, having similar limitations of claim 15, is also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Regarding claims 1, 15, and 20, such claim limitation is the “the simulation device”. Claims 3-7 and 9-14 as well as Claims 17-19 will also be interpreted based on their claim dependencies to claims, 1 and 15, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1, 15, and 20 recite “the simulation device establishing a simulation model of a to-be-detected device”, “the simulation device determining temperature coefficients of resistance corresponding to the first resistor, the second resistor, and the contact resistor”, and “the simulation device performing device simulation”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed creating of a simulation model, determining temperature coefficients, and performing simulation is the electronic device, which is a computer as shown in Para. 0054 (“The method for device simulation provided in an embodiment of the disclosure is applicable to various types of simulation devices, such as a computer”), Para. 00194 (“The electronic device includes at least one processor and a memory. The memory stores a computer-executable instruction. The at least one processor executes the computer-executable instruction stored in the memory to implement each step in the method for device simulation described in the above embodiments”), and Para. 00202 (“When the computer program is executed by a processor, each step in the method for device simulation described in the above embodiments may be implemented”). Further see originally filed claim 15. Therefore, the interpretation of the “the simulation device establishing a simulation model of a to-be-detected device”, “the simulation device determining temperature coefficients of resistance corresponding to the first resistor, the second resistor, and the contact resistor”, and “the simulation device performing device simulation” is the computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance; and determining the square resistance of the second resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature” in Ln. 11-15. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how the parasitic resistor remains unchanged with changes to the first length when a component of the parasitic resistor, the second resistor, is determined based on the first length.
It understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the first resistor square resistance is based off the first length (see claim 4, “determining the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”). Therefore, “determining the square resistance of the second resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is understood as the second resistor square resistance is also based on the first length through association with the first resistor. Per claim 1, “the parasitic resistor comprises a second resistor and a contact resistor”. If the second resistor, which is a component of the parasitic resistor, is based on the first length, then a change in the first length will result in a change to the resistance of the parasitic resistor, such is a known property of dependency/inherency. This seems to refute the previous limitation of “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” because of what was previously cited in claim with respect to its relationship to the first resistor through the second resistor. This limitation, in light of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, makes it indefinite.
Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173). The examiner has interpreted that identified a couple of possible ways this claim could be understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation:
The “first length” in “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” is a different length. While this relation to a first length is specifically stated in the claim and the specification (Para. 00167), Para. 00103 states that “the resistance value of the parasitic resistor Rext is not related to the width W and the length L of the to-be-detected device on the layout”. It could be understood that the “the length L” refers to length L as shown in Fig. 6, which is the length between the contacts of the device, i.e., only the length of the first resistor. Therefore, while the second resistor resistance is related to the first length in the sense of the entire device, the parasitic resistor resistance would not be related to the length L of the resistor.
The “do not cause changes” in “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” means do not cause direct changes. Such as discussed above, the parasitic resistor resistance is affected by the first length through the second resistor’s relationship to the first resistor’s relationship to length, which is an indirect relationship to length, e.g., not direct relationship. Therefore, this limitation would be interpreted as the parasitic resistance value is not a direct relationship to the first length, e.g., could be an indirect relationship to the first length as shown above.
For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the latter in view of the claims and its recitation in the specification (Para. 00167) and since the limitation specifically recites that “do not cause changes”. Therefore, “do not cause changes” in “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” has been interpreted as “do not cause direct changes”. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “do not cause changes” to “do not cause direct changes” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to this relation. Claim 18, having similar limitations of claim 4, is also rejected under the similar rationale. Claims 5-7 and 19, which are dependent on claims 4 and 18, respectively, are similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites the phrases “enable the simulation device establish” in Ln. 6, “enable the simulation device determine” in Ln. 12, and “enable the simulation device perform” in Ln. 16, should be “enable the simulation device to perform”. These phrases render the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitations following the phrases will be performed or not. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitations following these phrases will indeed be performed. The examiner recommends that applicant amends the claim language from “enable” to simply “configure” or similar, as supported by the specification, to confine the claim into a clear meaning. Claim 20, having similar limitations of claim 15, is also rejected under the similar rationale. Claims 17-19, which are dependent on claims 4 and 18, respectively, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 15 and 17-19 are directed to an electronic device and fall within the statutory category of machine; and claim 20 is directed to a non-volatile memory device and falls within the statutory category of an article of manufacture machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 15, and 20: The limitations of
“establishing a simulation model of a to-be-detected device, wherein the to-be-detected device comprises a first resistor and a parasitic resistor, the parasitic resistor comprises a second resistor and a contact resistor, the first resistor is a bulk resistor of the to-be-detected device, the second resistor is a terminal resistor of the to-be-detected device, and the contact resistor is an equivalent resistor of a contact plug on the to-be-detected device”
“determining temperature coefficients of resistance corresponding to the first resistor, the second resistor, and the contact resistor”,
“adding the temperature coefficients of resistance corresponding to the first resistor, the second resistor, and the contact resistor to the simulation model”,
“performing device simulation”,
“wherein the establishing the simulation model of the to-be-detected device comprises: determining a plurality of sampling temperatures T1, T2, ... , Tn”,
“determining a function relationship between a resistance value of the to-be detected device and a first length at each sampling temperature, wherein the first length is a length of the to-be-detected device on a layout”,
“determining a square resistance of the first resistor, a square resistance of the second resistor, and a resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”,
“determining a resistance value of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the second resistor and the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature”, and
“wherein the determining the resistance value of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the second resistor and the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature comprises: calculating the resistance value Rlicon(Ti) of the contact resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to the following manner: Rlicon(Ti)=Rext(Ti)-Rs_end(Ti)*L_end/W wherein Rext(Ti) represents the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, Rs_end(Ti) represents the square resistance of the second resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, L_end represents a length of a contact terminal of the to-be-detected device on the layout, and W represents the width of the to-be-detected device on the layout, wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a circuit diagram of a resistor to include its equivalent bulk, terminal, and a contact resistance values to replicate a device,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the temperature coefficients for the bulk, terminal and contact resistors as a linear fit of the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature for the resistor with the division of square resistance value at the temperature measured by square resistance value at the initial temperature using a simple linear regression formula for each respective resistor length,
a person can mentally update or draw with pen and paper the temperature coefficient to the resistor parameters of the circuit diagram of a resistor,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper characteristics of the resistor from the circuit diagram such has output current and voltage by performing circuit analysis using simple circuit analysis equations,
a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper a number of temperatures that were used in obtaining the total resistance value for the resistors at different lengths and temperatures,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper relationship between the total resistance value of the resistor and length of the device at each temperature such as the total resistance value increases with an increase in the length,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the square resistance formula, the square resistance of the bulk resistor and terminal resistor as well as the square resistance of the parasitic resistance which is merely the parasitic resistance value since it is a function of the resistor intrinsic resistance or an indirect relation to the length of the resistor,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, the contact resistance value as the mathematical difference between the parasitic resistance value and the square resistance of the terminal resistor at each temperature, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the contact resistance value as the mathematical difference between the square resistance value of the parasitic resistance and the square resistance of the terminal resistor at each temperature for the width of the resistor and length of the contact.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, claims 1, 15, and 20: The limitations of:
“determining temperature coefficients of resistance corresponding to the first resistor, the second resistor, and the contact resistor”
“performing device simulation”,
“determining a square resistance of the first resistor, a square resistance of the second resistor, and a resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”,
“determining a resistance value of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the second resistor and the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature”, and
“wherein the determining the resistance value of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the second resistor and the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature comprises: calculating the resistance value Rlicon(Ti) of the contact resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to the following manner: Rlicon(Ti)=Rext(Ti)-Rs_end(Ti)*L_end/W wherein Rext(Ti) represents the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, Rs_end(Ti) represents the square resistance of the second resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, L_end represents a length of a contact terminal of the to-be-detected device on the layout, and W represents the width of the to-be-detected device on the layout, wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the limitations can be performed as the following:
calculating the linear fitting for the temperature coefficients for the bulk, terminal and contact resistors which is the fit between the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature with the division of square resistance value at the temperature measured by square resistance value at the initial temperature for each respective resistor length can be conducted using the simple linear regression (see Para. 00136, the equations used in linear regressing, a type of linear fitting, can be found: https://www.colorado.edu/amath/sites/default/files/attached-files/ch12_0.pdf),
calculating characteristics of the resistor from the circuit diagram such has output current and voltage can be conducted using simple electrical circuit analysis equations (Para. 0078-0079, the equations used in circuit analysis to determine output voltages and currents can be found in Nilsson, James William, and Susan A. Riedel. Electric Circuits. Boston: Pearson, 2015),
calculating the square resistance of the resistor can be conducted using the total resistance and physical dimensions of the resistor (see Para. 0087 for the equation to calculate the square resistance of the resistor) at each temperature,
calculating the contact resistance value can be conducted using the mathematical difference between the parasitic resistance value and the square resistance of the terminal resistor for each temperature (see Para. 0098-0100), and
calculating the contact resistance value can be conducted using the mathematical difference between the square resistance value of the parasitic resistance and the square resistance of the terminal resistor at each temperature for the width of the resistor and length of the contact (see Para. 00133).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 15, and 20 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 15, and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A method for device simulation, applied to simulation device, the method comprising: the simulation device”, “by using Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis (SPICE) according to the simulation model”, “An electronic device, applied to simulation device, the electronic device comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions; and when the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to: enable the simulation device”, “A computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions therein, and when a processor executes the computer-executable instructions”, and “wherein the computer-readable storage medium is non-volatile memory device” which are merely a recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 15, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 15, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, they recite additional limitations of “performing plotting by using the first length as an X axis and the resistance value as a Y axis” and “then performing linear fitting, and determining, at each sampling temperature, a first function curve corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in a preset rectangular coordinate system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a graph of the total resistance values vs the different lengths of the device acquired from the measured data, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper a linear fit between the total resistance values and the lengths of the device using a simple linear regression formula and determine the equation for the linear fit line using the point-slope formula.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 17, they recite additional limitations of “then performing linear fitting, and determining, at each sampling temperature, a first function curve corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in a preset rectangular coordinate system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the linear fitting between the total resistance values and the lengths of the device can be conducted using the simple linear regression top determine a linear fit linear with respective equation for that line (see Para. 00104, the equations used in linear regressing, a type of linear fitting, can be found: https://www.colorado.edu/amath/sites/default/files/attached-files/ch12_0.pdf, and further see Para. 00111, “The above linear fitting method may establish a data relationship (a mathematical model) according to given discrete data points”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 17, they recite additional element recitations of “respectively measuring, at each sampling temperature, the resistance values of the to-be-detected device corresponding to a same width and different first lengths, wherein the width is a width of the to-be-detected device on the layout” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, they recite additional limitations of :
“determining the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”,
“determining the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature, wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance”, and
“determining the square resistance of the second resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length, the square resistance of the bulk resistor as slope of the regression line multiplied by the width of the resistor
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length, the resistance value of the parasitic resistor as intercept of the regression line divided by the number terminals, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the square resistance value of the terminal resistor as the square resistance value of the bulk resistor.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 18, they recite additional limitations of
“determining the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”,
“determining the resistance value of the parasitic resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature, wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance”, and
“determining the square resistance of the second resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the following limitations can be conducted as the following:
calculating the square resistance of the bulk resistor can be conducted using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length as the slope of the regression line by the width of the resistor (see Para. 00118) at each temperature,
calculating the square resistance of the bulk resistor can be conducted using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length as the intercept of the regression line (see Para. 00118) at each temperature and divided by the number of contacts, and
calculating the square resistance value of the terminal resistor can be conducted be setting it equal to the square resistance of the bulk resistor (see Para. 00124) at each temperature
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of: “calculating the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to a slope K(Ti) of a function curve L(Ti) corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in the preset rectangular coordinate system at the sampling temperature Ti: Rs_pure(Ti)=K(Ti)*W wherein W represents the width of the to-be-detected device on the layout, and Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length, the square resistance of the bulk resistor as slope of the regression line multiplied by the width of the resistor for each temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 19, they recite an additional limitation of: “calculating the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to a slope K(Ti) of a function curve L(Ti) corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in the preset rectangular coordinate system at the sampling temperature Ti: Rs_pure(Ti)=K(Ti)*W wherein W represents the width of the to-be-detected device on the layout, and Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the square resistance of the bulk resistor can be conducted using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length as the slope of the regression line by the width of the resistor (see Para. 00118) at each temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the resistance value Rext(Ti) of the parasitic resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to an intercept B(Ti) of a function curve L(Ti) corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in the preset rectangular coordinate system at the sampling temperature Ti: Rext(Ti)=B(Ti)/2 wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length, the resistance value of the parasitic resistor as intercept of the regression line divided by the number terminals.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the resistance value Rext(Ti) of the parasitic resistor at the sampling temperature Ti according to an intercept B(Ti) of a function curve L(Ti) corresponding to the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length in the preset rectangular coordinate system at the sampling temperature Ti: Rext(Ti)=B(Ti)/2 wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the square resistance of the bulk resistor can be conducted using the determined linear regressing formula at a first length as the slope of the regression line (see Para. 00118) at each temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of: “determining the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti as the square resistance Rs_end(Ti) of the second resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the square resistance value of the terminal resistor as the square resistance value of the bulk resistor.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, it recites an additional limitation of: “determining the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti as the square resistance Rs_end(Ti) of the second resistor at the sampling temperature Ti, wherein Ti ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the square resistance value of the terminal resistor can be conducted be setting it equal to the square resistance of the bulk resistor (see Para. 00124) at each temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein, when a number N of the contact plugs on the contact terminal of the to-be-detected device is greater than or equal to 2, a resistance value Rlicon'(Ti) of a single contact plug at the sampling temperature Ti is: Rlicon'(Ti)=Rlicon(Ti)*N”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the contact resistance value of a single plug as the square resistance value of the contact resistance multiplied by the number of contact plugs.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein, when a number N of the contact plugs on the contact terminal of the to-be-detected device is greater than or equal to 2, a resistance value Rlicon'(Ti) of a single contact plug at the sampling temperature Ti is: Rlicon'(Ti)=Rlicon(Ti)*N”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the contact resistance value of a single plug can be conducted by multiplying the contact resistance value with number of contact plugs (see Para. 00134).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 10, it recites additional limitations of:
“according to the square resistances Rs_pure(T1), Rs_pure(T2), ... , Rs_pure(Tn) of the first resistor at each sampling temperature T1, T2, ... , Tn, performing plotting by using a difference between the sampling temperature Ti and a baseline sampling temperature Tj as an X axis and a quotient of the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti and the square resistance Rs_pure(Tj) of the first resistor at the baseline sampling temperature Tj as a Y axis”,
“then performing linear fitting and determining a second function curve of the temperature coefficient of resistance of the first resistor and an ambient temperature, wherein Tj ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, and
“determining the temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the first resistor according to the second function curve and a to-be-detected ambient temperature” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a graph of the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature of the bulk resistor vs the division of square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature at the initial temperature,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature for the bulk resistor as a linear fit with the division of square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the initial temperature using a simple linear regression formula, and
a person can mentally set or draw with pen and paper the linear fit of the temperature coefficient of resistance for the bulk resistor for the set of measured temperatures as the temperature coefficient of resistance for any given temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, it recites additional limitations of: “according to the square resistances Rs_pure(T1), Rs_pure(T2), ... , Rs_pure(Tn) of the first resistor at each sampling temperature T1, T2, ... , Tn, performing plotting by using a difference between the sampling temperature Ti and a baseline sampling temperature Tj as an X axis and a quotient of the square resistance Rs_pure(Ti) of the first resistor at the sampling temperature Ti and the square resistance Rs_pure(Tj) of the first resistor at the baseline sampling temperature Tj as a Y axis” and “then performing linear fitting and determining a second function curve of the temperature coefficient of resistance of the first resistor and an ambient temperature, wherein Tj ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature of the bulk resistor as well as the division of square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature at the initial temperature for using in plotting the relationship can be conducted with simple arithmetic (Para. 00136). Additionally, calculating the linear fitting between the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature for the bulk resistor with the division of square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the bulk resistor at the initial temperature using the simple linear regression (see Para. 00136, the equations used in linear regressing, a type of linear fitting, can be found: https://www.colorado.edu/amath/sites/default/files/attached-files/ch12_0.pdf).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the temperature coefficient of resistance TC_Rpure(t) corresponding to the first resistor according to the following manner: TC_Rpure(t)=K1*(t-Tj)+C1 wherein K1 is a slope of the second function curve, t represents the to-be-detected ambient temperature, and C1 represents an intercept of the second function curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula, the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the bulk resistor having a slope of the regression line multiplied by a dependent variable which is the difference between the desired temperature and the initial temperature with the addition of the intercept of the regression line.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the temperature coefficient of resistance TC_Rpure(t) corresponding to the first resistor according to the following manner: TC_Rpure(t)=K1*(t-Tj)+C1 wherein K1 is a slope of the second function curve, t represents the to-be-detected ambient temperature, and C1 represents an intercept of the second function curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the bulk resistor can be conducted as the determined linear regressing formula having a slope of the regression line multiplied a dependent variable which is the difference between the desired temperature and the initial temperature with the addition of the intercept of the regression line (see Para. 00141).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein the temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the first resistor is same as a temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the second resistor”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the terminal resistor as the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the bulk resistor.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of: “wherein the temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the first resistor is same as a temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the second resistor”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the terminal resistor can be conducted be setting it equal to the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the bulk resistor (see Para. 00143).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 13, it recites additional limitations of:
“according to the square resistances Rlicon(T1), Rlicon(T2), ... , Rlicon(Tn) of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature T1, T2, ... , Tn, performing plotting by using a difference between the sampling temperature Ti and a baseline sampling temperature Tj as an X axis and a quotient of the resistance Rlicon(Ti) of the contact resistor at the sampling temperature Ti and the resistance Rlicon(Tj) of the contact resistor at the baseline sampling temperature Tj as a Y axis”
“then performing linear fitting and determining a third function curve of the temperature coefficient of resistance of the contact resistor and an ambient temperature, wherein Tj ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, and
“determining the temperature coefficient of resistance corresponding to the contact resistor according to the third function curve and a to-be-detected ambient temperature”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a graph of the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature for the contact resistor vs the division of square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature at the initial temperature,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature for the contact resistor as a linear fit with the division of square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the contact resistor at the initial temperature using a simple linear regression formula,
a person can mentally set or draw with pen and paper the linear fit of the temperature coefficient of resistance for the contact resistor for the set of measured temperatures as the temperature coefficient of resistance for any given temperature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, it recites additional limitations of: “according to the square resistances Rlicon(T1), Rlicon(T2), ... , Rlicon(Tn) of the contact resistor at each sampling temperature T1, T2, ... , Tn, performing plotting by using a difference between the sampling temperature Ti and a baseline sampling temperature Tj as an X axis and a quotient of the resistance Rlicon(Ti) of the contact resistor at the sampling temperature Ti and the resistance Rlicon(Tj) of the contact resistor at the baseline sampling temperature Tj as a Y axis” and “then performing linear fitting and determining a third function curve of the temperature coefficient of resistance of the contact resistor and an ambient temperature, wherein Tj ∈ (T1, T2, ... , Tn)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature of the contact resistor as well as the division of square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature at the initial temperature for using in plotting the relationship can be conducted with simple arithmetic (Para. 00144). Additionally, for example, calculating the linear fitting between the difference between the temperature measured and the initial temperature with the division of square resistance value of the contact resistor at the temperature measured by square resistance value of the contact resistor at the initial temperature using the simple linear regression (see Para. 00144, the equations used in linear regressing, a type of linear fitting, can be found: https://www.colorado.edu/amath/sites/default/files/attached-files/ch12_0.pdf)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the temperature coefficient of resistance TC_Rlicon(t) corresponding to the contact resistor according to the following manner: TC_Rlicon(t)=K2*(t-Tj)+C2 wherein K2 is a slope of the third function curve, t represents the to-be-detected ambient temperature, and C2 represents an intercept of the third function curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper, using the determined linear regressing formula, the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the contact resistor having a slope of the regression line multiplied by a dependent variable which is the difference between the desired temperature and the initial temperature with the addition of the intercept of the regression line.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of: “calculating the temperature coefficient of resistance TC_Rlicon(t) corresponding to the contact resistor according to the following manner: TC_Rlicon(t)=K2*(t-Tj)+C2 wherein K2 is a slope of the third function curve, t represents the to-be-detected ambient temperature, and C2 represents an intercept of the third function curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the temperature coefficient of the square resistance of the contact resistor can be conducted as the determined linear regressing formula having a slope of the regression line multiplied a dependent variable which is the difference between the desired temperature and the initial temperature with the addition of the intercept of the regression line (see Para. 00149).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-7 and 9-14 and claims 17-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 15, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
The rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn based on the amendments to the independent claims filed December 10, 2025 that incorporated subject matter that was previous indicated as overcoming the prior art in the Non-Final Rejection mailed September 11, 2025. The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” in claims 4 and 18 should not rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) since the “the resistance value of the parasitic resistor is not related to the first length” as originally filed in the claim can be understood as “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 16).
MPEP § 2173.02(II) recites “If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate.”.
The limitation of “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance”, by itself, is not the issue. The issue is this limitation in light of the remaining limitation of the claim and with claim 1 because of the following
the first resistor depends on the first length, (claim 4, “determining the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature according to the function relationship between the resistance value of the to-be-detected device and the first length at each sampling temperature”),
the second resistor depends on the first resistor (claim 4, “determining the square resistance of the second resistor at each sampling temperature according to the square resistance of the first resistor at each sampling temperature”), and
the parasitic resistor includes the second resistor (claim 1, “the parasitic resistor comprises a second resistor and a contact resistor”),
Therefore, the parasitic resistor depends on the first length. How can “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” be true if parasitic resistor depends on the first length? Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim, and it is unclear which is being referred to. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that “wherein changes in the first length do not cause changes in the resistance value of the parasitic resistance” is unclear and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant argues that amended claim 1, 15, and 20 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 17-18).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. MPEP § 2106.05(a) also recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process and mathematical concepts in the rejection above. The additional elements are “A method for device simulation, applied to simulation device, the method comprising: the simulation device”, “by using Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis (SPICE) according to the simulation model”, “An electronic device, applied to simulation device, the electronic device comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions; and when the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to: enable the simulation device”, “A computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions therein, and when a processor executes the computer-executable instructions”, and “wherein the computer-readable storage medium is non-volatile memory device” which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process or a mathematical concept in the rejection above. Therefore, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology or through the use of meaningful limitations.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes, mathematical concepts, and limitations that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 17, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment of “the computer-readable storage medium is non-volatile memory device”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 19, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the independent claims incorporated subject matter that was previous indicated as overcoming the prior art in the Non-Final Rejection mailed September 11, 2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakuna, Nattaphon, Rangson Muanghlua, Surasak Niemcharoen, and Anucha Ruangphanit. “The effect of temperature on threshold voltage, the low field mobilty and the series parasitic resistance of pmosfet.” CURRENT APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13, no. 1 (2013): 9-16 teaches the modeling of the parasitic resistance of a PMOSFET as a function of temperature and size of the contact devices. The modeling derives temperature coefficient of resistance to determine the parasitic resistance characteristics.
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.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188