DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-20 are presented for examination.
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 Arguments - Drawings
Applicant’s with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 10 that the claims cannot be practically performed by humans.
The claim involves predicting an attribute and determining resistance and capacitance based on predicted attributes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components or insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering.
The rejection has been updated to reflect the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 3-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1, 3-13, 15-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 111 and 20 claim a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a system. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a process, article of manufacture and machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method comprising:
receiving segments of nets generated by a global routing using a netlist representation of a circuit design;
providing features extracted from the segments as input to one or more machine learning models and executing, by a processing device, the one or more machine learning models, wherein the one or more machine learning models predict attributes of the input segments (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
determining parasitic resistance and parasitic capacitance values for a detailed routing of the nets of the circuit design based on the predicted attributes (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
wherein one of the machine learning models predicts an attribute representing a track distance for the detailed routing of a segment of a net, the track distance representing a distance from a neighboring net (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves predicting an attribute and determining resistance and capacitance based on predicted attributes. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “receiving segments of nets generated by a global routing using a netlist representation of a circuit design” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “providing features extracted from the segments as input to one or more machine learning models” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), and “executing, by a processing device, the one or more machine learning models” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “wherein the one or more machine learning models predict” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “wherein one of the machine learning models predicts” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “receiving segments of nets generated by a global routing using a netlist representation of a circuit design” and “providing features extracted from the segments as input to one or more machine learning models” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "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:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 11 and 20 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 3-10, 12-13 and 15-19.
Claims 3-10, 12-13 and 15-19 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve determining and predicting. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: “features extracted from the segments and provided as input to the one or more machine leaning models” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), in claims 10 and 19. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards and data gathering. Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional. See above cited court cases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
The closest prior art of record teaches:
US 11,348,000 (“Ding”): a computer-implemented method for routing in an electronic design. Embodiments may include receiving, using at least one processor, global route data associated with an electronic design as an input and generating detail route data, based upon, at least in part, the global route data. Embodiments may further include transforming one or more of the detail route data and the global route data into at least one input feature and at least one output result of a deep neural network. Embodiments may also include training the deep neural network with the global route data and the detail route data and predicting an output associated with a detail route based upon, at least in part, a trained deep neural network model. Embodiments may also include generating routing information for each routing grid.
“A Machine Learning Based Parasitic Extraction Tool” (“Pradipta”): a machine learning-based parasitic extractor that takes a routed design in DEF and generates parasitics in SPEF. The software builds regression models that capture the behavior of resistance, capacitance to ground, coupling, crossover, and crossunder capacitance of a net. The characterization of these models is a one-time cost to extract per-unit parasitics of the BEOL stack for a given technology. The trained regression models can then be used to rapidly estimate all the parasitic information of a net in the design.
“ML-Based Wire RC Prediction in Monolithic 3D ICs with an Application to Full-Chip Optimization” (“Pentapati”): a regression model based on boosted decision tree learning to better predict the 3D wire parasitics (RCs) at the pseudo-3D stage. The model is trained using individual net features as well as the full-chip design metrics using multiple instantiations of 8 different netlists and is tested on 3 unseen netlists.
However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 1)
“determining parasitic resistance and parasitic capacitance values for a detailed routing of the nets of the circuit design based on the predicted attributes;
wherein one of the machine learning models predicts an attribute representing a track distance for the detailed routing of a segment of a net, the track distance representing a distance from a neighboring net”,
(claim 11)
“determine parasitic resistance and parasitic capacitance values for a detailed routing of the nets of the circuit design based on the predicted attributes;
wherein one of the machine learning models predicts an attribute representing a difference between via number determined by the global routing and via number determined by the detailed routing”,
(claim 26)
“determine parasitic resistance and parasitic capacitance values for a detailed routing of the nets of the circuit design based on the predicted attributes;
wherein one of the machine learning models predicts an attribute representing a difference between net length determined by the global routing and net length determined by the detailed routing”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights