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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-16, 21-24 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 08/03/2026.
2. Claim rejection of Claims 1-20 under USC 101 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 08/03/2026.
3. Claim rejection of Claims 15-20 under USC 101 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 08/03/2026.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
As best understood by Examiner, the summary of applicant’s argument is: Polisetty, in combination with Barsness do not teach:
storing a set of breakpoints, each breakpoint associated with a state of the device and
identifying a set of signals from the device that is less than a complete set of signals from the
device. and
responsive to the current state of the device changing during execution of the simulation,
updating the breakpoint list based on the current state of the device changing during the
execution of the simulation.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument.
First, Polisetty, presented here as primary reference, in Figure 1, column 3 lines 40-56 recites a cone of influence (i.e. Identifies) listing of signals related to failing net, which is analogous to the claimed limitations identifying a set of signals from the device that is less than a complete set of signals from the device – because the device contains the output signal as well which the cone of influence do not cover. The secondary art Barsness, in Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410 and paragraphs [0073], [0075]-0076] recites a Conditional Breakpoint Table 410 where the conditionals breakpoints represents different conditions or states of the device- analogous the claimed limitations of storing a set of breakpoints, each breakpoint associated with a state of the device.
Furthermore , Barsness in Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410 and paragraphs [0073], [0075]-0076] recites providing a method for a debugger to determine the current value of a configurable system limit or option (variable)-which is analogous to the claimed limitation of responsive to the current state of the device changing during execution of the simulation, updating the breakpoint list based on the current state of the device changing during the execution of the simulation.
Therefore , the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness teaches each and every limitations of the amended independent claim including the ones in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-16, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Polisetty et al., hereafter, Polisetty (Patent No.: US 8,024,168 B2), in view of Barsness et al. hereafter, Barsness (Pub. No.: US 2007/0168994 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Polisetty discloses a method for identifying a transition of a signal from a defined state to an undefined state when simulating a device (Polisetty: abstract), the method comprising:
identifying a set of signals from the device that is less than a complete set of signals from the device (Polisetty: Figure 1, column 3 lines 40-56: when input signal 1, input signal 2, and input signal 3, all relate to an output signal 4, the cone of influence includes input signal 1, input signal 2, and input signal 3. (Examiner’s Remark (ER): Note that the cone of influence involves the input signals but not the output signal))
executing a simulation of the device using simulation data (Polisetty: Figure 1, column 3 lines 10-24: The simulation tool 127 develops models and simulates operation of electronic devices (e.g., an integrated circuit));
determining a current state of the device from values of one or more storage elements of the device (Polisetty: Figure 2, column 4 line 60-column 5 line 5: The simulation data relating to the cone of influence 140 (FIG. 2) at time (i) is monitored at block 206. The X state transitions within the monitored simulation data are evaluated at block 208. For all signals in the cone of influence 140 (FIG. 2));
and
monitoring the set of signals from the device identified (Polisetty: Figure 2, column 4 line 60-column 5 line 14: The simulation data relating to the cone of influence 140 (FIG. 2) at time (i) is monitored at block 206. The X state transitions within the monitored simulation data are evaluated at block 208. For all signals in the cone of influence 140 (FIG. Once the data is stored in the waveform 150 (FIG. 2) at block 214, the transition count is evaluated at block 216).
Polisetty do not explicitly disclose:
storing a set of breakpoints, each breakpoint associated with a state of the device; and
selecting a breakpoint list including one or more breakpoints based on the current state of
the device.
responsive to the current state of the device changing during execution of the simulation,
updating the breakpoint list based on the current state of the device changing during the
execution of the simulation.
Barsness disclose:
storing a set of breakpoints, each breakpoint associated with a state of the device (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410: Conditional Breakpoint Table 410; [0073], [0075]-0076]: defining (400) a conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning (406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint. The condition may be associated with the conditional breakpoint by use of a data structure such as conditional breakpoint table (410)); and
selecting a breakpoint list including one or more breakpoints based on the current state of
the device (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410: Conditional Breakpoint Table 410; [0073], [0075]-0076]: defining (400) a conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning (406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint. The condition may be associated with the conditional breakpoint by use of a data structure such as conditional breakpoint table (410));
responsive to the current state of the device changing during execution of the simulation,
updating the breakpoint list based on the current state of the device changing during the
execution of the simulation (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410: Conditional Breakpoint Table 410; [0073], [0075]-[0080]: defining (400) a conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning (406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint. The condition may be associated with the conditional breakpoint by use of a data structure such as conditional breakpoint table (410)….. provides a method for a debugger to determine the current value of a configurable system limit or option (variable).);.
Polisetty and Barsness are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to simulation environment debugging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above X state transition debug application, as taught by Polisetty, and incorporating the use of conditional breakpoint in the debugger, as taught by Barsness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to retrieving debug information at the breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of the remote execution environment, as suggested by Barsness (Barsness: abstract).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the breakpoint list including one or more breakpoints based on the current state of the device comprises:
selecting one or more breakpoints each associated with a state of the device matching the
current state of the device (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410: Conditional Breakpoint Table 410; [0066]: In the example of FIG. 4, conditional breakpoint settings window (390) depicts data associating a breakpoint identifier (391) with an attribute (392) of a remote execution environment, a value (395), and a relationship (393) between the attribute (392) and the value (395); [0073], [0075]-0076]: defining (400) a conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning (406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint. The condition may be associated with the conditional breakpoint by use of a data structure such as conditional breakpoint table (410)).
Motivation to combine Polisetty and Barsness is the same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 16, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to detecting the transition from the defined state to the undefined state on a
signal included in the set of signals identified by the one or more breakpoints included in
the breakpoint list, suspending execution of the simulation (Barsness: Figure 5 -423; [0076]: a computer program in a debug session in the remote execution environment includes determining (423) whether a conditional breakpoint condition is satisfied; Examiner’s Remark(ER):suspending execution is a matter of design choice).
Motivation to combine Polisetty and Barsness is the same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 3 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising:
tracing back through the simulation from a time when the transition from the defined state to the undefined state was detected to identify a source of the transition from the defined state to the undefined state (Polisetty: Figure 3A, 3B, column 3 line 62- column 4 line 41: the waveform module 134 monitors the simulation data 142 relating to the signals in the cone of influence 140 for transitions of the signals from a defined state to an undefined state and stores the corresponding data during these transitions).
Regarding Claim 12, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 4, wherein tracing back through the simulation from the time when the transition from the defined state to the undefined state comprises:
retrieving a representation of the simulation (Polisetty: Figure 2, 3A, 3B, column 3 line 57- column 4 line 51: The waveform module 134 receives as input the cone of
influence 140, the failure time 144, and the simulation data);
retrieving one or more rules determining determine which path to choose when tracing back through the representation of the simulation (Polisetty: Figure 2, 3A, 3B, column 3 line 62- column 4 line 51: the waveform module 134 can optionally receive as input a transition parameter 152. The transition parameter 152 represents a number (N) of transitions between the defined state and the undefined state); and
selecting a path for tracing back through the simulation based on the one or more rules (Polisetty: Figure 2, 3A, 3B, column 3 line 62- column 4 line 51: Note the X state transition from defined to undefined state and vice versa-based upon the selection of the path denoted by T(n)).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 5 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising:
responsive to identifying the source of the transition from the defined state to the undefined state (Polisetty: Figure 2, 3A, 3B, column 3 line 62- column 4 line 51), modifying a breakpoint included in the breakpoint list to include the identified source (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5, [0073]-[0076]: conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning ( 406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint……The condition ( 413) specifies the relationship between a value of an attribute of a remote execution environment and the value received from a debugger client that satisfies
the condition).
Regarding Claim 14, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising:
storing the modified breakpoint (Barsness: [0084], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0091]: data element storage).
Motivation to combine Polisetty and Barsness is the same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an updated state of the device from values of one or more storage elements
of the device (Polisetty: column 5 lines 35-47: this waveforms point directly to an X state
transition for any signal in a simulation, so that all the needed 45 information is generated in one small waveform file for every signal);
selecting an updated breakpoint list including one or more updated breakpoints based on the updated state of the device (Barsness: Figure 4-390, Figure 5 -410: Conditional Breakpoint Table 410; [0073], [0075]-0076]: defining (400) a conditional breakpoint conditioned upon one or more attributes of a remote execution environment includes assigning (406) a condition (413) to a conditional breakpoint. The condition may be associated with the conditional breakpoint by use of a data structure such as conditional breakpoint table (410)); and
monitoring the set of signals from the device identified by the one or more updated breakpoints included in the updated breakpoint list (Polisetty: Figure 2, column 4 line 60-column 5 line 14: The simulation data relating to the cone of influence 140 (FIG. 2) at time (i) is monitored at block 206. The X state transitions within the monitored simulation data are evaluated at block 208. For all signals in the cone of influence 140 (FIG. Once the data is stored in the waveform 150 (FIG. 2) at block 214, the transition count is evaluated at block 216).
Motivation to combine Polisetty and Barsness is the same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the set of signals from the device identified by each breakpoint of the set of breakpoints comprises one or more specific latches of the device or one or more specific registers of the device (Barsness[0074] : After encountering a conditional breakpoint, an interrupt handler or operating system function stores the values of the processor's hardware registers, including the current value of the program counter, in computer memory and transfers processor control to a debugger).
Regarding Claim 22, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: changing the set of signals from the device that are monitored in response to updating the breakpoint list (Polisetty: Figure 2, column 4 line 60-column 5 line 14: The simulation data relating to the cone of influence 140 (FIG. 2) at time (i) is monitored at block 206. The X state transitions within the monitored simulation data are evaluated at block 208)..
Regarding Claim 23, the combinations of Polisetty and Barsness further disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more rules include a rule to select a path of signals that crosses at least one of a clock boundary, a voltage boundary, or a unit boundary (Polisetty: Figure 5A, 5B, 5C, column 5 lines 15-34: Nite the number of transitions related to clock signal of the IC).
Examination Considerations
6. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers (or paragraphs) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific imitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, 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. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
7. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. "Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)" (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, I 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
8. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to prior art to assist the applicant to better understand the nature of the prior art, application of such prior art and, as appropriate, to further indicate other prior art that maybe applied in other office actions. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution. However, and unless otherwise stated, the Examiner's Notes are not prior art but a link to prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would find inherently appropriate.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-16, 21-24 are rejected.
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights