DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Categories. Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory, which falls within a statutory category – a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception. Claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the claim recites the steps of “obtaining initial connection patterns”, “obtaining initial cutting patterns”, “identifying non-functional connection patterns”, and “generating final cutting patterns”. The step of “identifying” specific geometries falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract idea because evaluating and classifying data patterns represents concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, “generating” new patterns from existing inputs relies on mathematical concepts and relationships.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical Application. Claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements—namely, a generic “processor” and “non-transitory memory”. These components, however, are recited at a high level of generality and invoke computers merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim concludes by simply “generating final cutting patterns” (i.e., data output) without reciting any details of how a technological solution is accomplished or applied physically. As illustrated in the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples July 2024 (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf), claiming the generation of data without further practical application (similar to determining embedding vectors in Example 48, Claim 1) constitutes mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. This fails to impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a processor and non-transitory memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/components previously known to the industry.
Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, appending generic computer components to an abstract mental process and mathematical concept does not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 6, 12, and 16-20 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.
In claim 6, at line 1, the phrase “the connection layers” lacks antecedent basis render the claim indefinite.
In claims 12, 16 and 17, each at line 1, the phrase “the conductive patterns” lacks antecedent basis render each claim indefinite.
In claims 18-20, each at line 1, the phrase “the final layout patterns” lacks antecedent basis rendering each claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, and 13-15 are allowed.
Claims 12 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the § 101 rejections set forth above and any applicable § 112 rejection.
Claims 1-20 are indicated as allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an apparatus or method having all the combinations of elements or steps as recited in and required by independent claims 1, 8, or 15, particularly including, among other things, the following:
In claim 1, obtaining initial cutting patterns for cutting the initial connection patterns, identifying non-functional connection patterns at least from the initial connection patterns, and generating final cutting patterns from the initial cutting patterns and the non-functional connection patterns.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
In claim 8, preparing second layout patterns, which partially overlap the first layout patterns; identifying non-functional patterns in the first layout patterns; preparing final layout patterns by combining the second layout patterns and the non-functional patterns of the first layout patterns using a logical OR operation between the second layout patterns and the non-functional patterns of the first layout patterns.
Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8.
In claim 15, preparing initial connection patterns, active region patterns and via hole patterns; preparing initial cutting patterns for cutting the initial connection patterns based on the initial connection patterns, the active region patterns and the via hole patterns; preparing final cutting patterns by combining the initial cutting patterns and part of the initial connection patterns
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. 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 (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851