Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/110,344

USING TOPOLOGICAL AND GEOMETRIC ROUTERS TO PRODUCE CURVILINEAR ROUTES

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Examiner
TAT, BINH C
Art Unit
2851
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
D2S Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1052 granted / 1205 resolved
+19.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1232
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§103
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§102
63.8%
+23.8% vs TC avg
§112
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1205 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. DETAILED ACTION This is a response to the amendment filed on 12/04/25. The applicant argument regarding Teig et al. is not persuasive; therefore, all the rejections based on Teig et al. is retained and repeated for the following reasons. Summary of claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teig et al. (US Pat. 7096449). As to claims 1 the prior art teaches a method of performing curvilinear routing for an integrated circuit design, the method comprising: performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets (see fig 3-8 col. 8 lines 54 to col. 9 lines 56; especially, Teig et al. teach performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets as fig 3-8 col. 9 lines 1-50); and performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes with curvilinear segments (see fig 3, fig 6-9 col. 9 lines 23 to col. 11 lines 44; especially, Teig et al. teach performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes with curvilinear segments as fig 3, fig 6-9 col. 9 lines 40 to col. 11 lines 30). As to claims 2, the prior art teaches wherein each topological route in a set of topological routes has a plurality of possible geometric routes that are possible geometric realizations of the topological route (see fig 3-8 col. 9 lines 1-60). As to claims 3 the prior art teaches wherein each of a plurality of topological route has positional information defined by reference to at least one other topological route, while each geometric route is defined by reference to specific coordinates that define one or more route segments of the geometric route (see fig 3, 6-9 col. 10 lines 20 to col. 11 lines 60). As to claims 4 the prior art teaches wherein each topological route also has positional information defined by references to at least two nodes in the IC design connected by the topological route (see fig 3-8 col. 11 lines 20 to col. 12 lines 40). As to claim 5 the prior art teaches wherein performing the topological routing operations comprises tessellating one or more routing layers into a plurality of polygons and defining the topological routes by reference to edges of the polygons (see fig 7-11 col. 12 lines 10 to col. 13 lines 50). As to claims 6 the prior art teaches wherein the geometric routing operation specifies spacing between the geometric routes, while the topological routing operation does not specify specific spacing as the topological routing operation does not define geometric coordinates for the entirety of each topological route (see fig 7-13 col. 13 lines 20 to col. 14 lines 40). As to claims 7 the prior art teaches wherein the geometric routing operation specifies spacing between the geometric routes, while the topological routing operation does not specify specific spacing as the topological routing operation does not define geometric coordinates for each end of each segment of each topological route that the topological routing operation defines (see fig 7-13 col. 14 lines 10 to col. 15 lines 50). As to claims 8 the prior art teaches wherein the topological routing operation accounts for expected wire thickness of the topological routes in order to keep track of congestion along the polygon edges (see fig 7-13 col. 16 lines 10 to col. 17 lines 45). As to claim 9 the prior art teaches further comprising performing a post-processing operation to optimize one or more identified geometric routes based on one or more optimization criteria (see fig 8-14 col. 17 lines 50 to col. 18 lines 45). As to claims 10 the prior art teaches wherein the geometric routing defines geometric routes by defining widths for the identified topological routes, and the post-processing operation modifies the geometric routes based on the optimization criteria (see fig 8-14 col. 18 lines 20 to col. 19 lines 50). As to claims 11, the prior art teaches wherein the optimization criteria comprises a spacing criteria to spread out the geometric routes in order to reduce capacitive coupling between the geometric routes (see fig 8-14 col. 19lines 30 to col. 20lines 45). As to claims 12 the prior art teaches wherein the optimization criteria comprises a compaction criteria to pack the geometric routes in order to reduce size of an IC die on which the IC is manufactured. (see fig 8-14 col. 20 lines 30 to col. 21 lines 65) As to claims 13 the prior art teaches wherein the optimization criteria comprises user selectable criteria that a user selects in order to improve the performance of the IC design (see fig 8-16 col. 23 lines 40 to col. 24 lines 56). As to claim 14 the prior art teaches wherein the user-selectable optimization criteria further comprising reducing the area consumed by the geometric routes (see fig 12-17 col. 24 lines 25 to col. 26 lines 65); wherein the performing of the post-processing operation comprises directing a compactor to compact the geometric routes when a user selects area reduction as the optimization criteria (see fig 12-17 col 26 lines 14 to col. 27 lines 60). As to claims 15 the prior art teaches further comprising modifying at least a subset of the geometric routes to be further away from at least some of their neighboring routes when the user selects spacing out the geometric routes to improve timing performance of signals traversing wires that will be produced based on these routes (see fig 12-18 col. 25 lines 50 to col. 27 lines 10). As to claims 16 the prior art teaches wherein the post-processing optimizes the geometric routes by directing a geometric router that performed the geometric routing operation to re-perform a routing operation for a subset of nets (see fig 8-14 col. 18 lines 50 to col. 19 lines 65). As to claims 17 the prior art teaches wherein the post-processing optimizes the geometric routes without directing a geometric router that performed the geometric routing operation to re-perform any routing operation for any subset of nets (see fig 9-14 col. 19 lines 40 to col. 21 lines 50). As to claim 18 the prior art teaches wherein the post-processing operation modifies one or more geometric routes by moving one or more segments of the modified geometric routes in the IC design (see fig 10-15 col. 21 lines 30 to col. 22 lines 60). As to claim 19 the prior art teaches wherein the post-processing operation modifies one or more geometric routes by defining additional segments and additional coordinates for one or more segments of the modified geometric routes in the IC design (see fig 11-16 col. 22 lines 50 to col. 24 lines 15). As to claim 20 the prior art teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium storing a routing program which when executed by at least one processing unit defines curvilinear routes for an integrated circuit (IC) design, the program comprising sets of instructions for: performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets in the IC design (see fig 3-8 col. 8 lines 30 to col. 9 lines 50; and performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes, each curvilinear route comprising at least one curved segment that is not a straight line (see fig 3, fig 6-9 col. 9 lines 1 to col. 11 lines 60). Remarks Applicant’s response and remarks filed on 12/04/25 have been carefully reviewed. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Key argument and their response related to the claims are listed as below: Applicant contends that Teig et al. do not describe “performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets” probes as claimed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art (Teig et al. US Pat. 7096449) do teach performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets (see fig 3-8 col. 8 lines 54 to col. 9 lines 56; especially, Teig et al. teach performing a topological routing operation to identify a plurality of topological routes for a plurality of nets as fig 3-8 col. 9 lines 1-50). Applicant contends that Teig et al. do not describe “performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes with curvilinear segments” probes as claimed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art (Teig et al. US Pat. 7096449) do teach performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes with curvilinear segments (see fig 3, fig 6-9 col. 9 lines 23 to col. 11 lines 44; especially, Teig et al. teach performing a geometric routing operation to identify a plurality of geometric routes for the identified plurality of topological routes, said identified geometric routes comprising a plurality of curvilinear routes with curvilinear segments as fig 3, fig 6-9 col. 9 lines 40 to col. 11 lines 30) Conclusion 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH C TAT whose telephone number is 571 272-1908. The examiner can normally be reached on flex 7:00Am-8PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571 272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /BINH C TAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Apr 09, 2026
Notice of Allowance
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602530
Apparatus, Device, Method and Computer Program for Generating a Circuit Design of Polynomial Interpolation Hardware
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603531
Systems And Methods For Wireless Power And Data Transfer Utilizing Multiple Antenna Receivers
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596863
NANOFABRICATION AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR 3D ICS AND CONFIGURABLE ASICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591730
TEST PATTERN GENERATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585857
Method for Automated Standard Cell Design
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month