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
This Final office is a response to the papers filed on 07/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments file on 07/29/2027 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 8 and 15:
Regarding the terms “computer readable storage media” in claims 8 and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium, as the claim presented, covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification [page 30 of the specification] is silent about the “medium” (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 1351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant replaces “computer readable storage media” in claims 8 and 15 with - - non- transitory computer readable storage media- -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin (US 20140089872 A1) further in view of West (U.S. Patent No. 5475624 A).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Galpin discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
selecting a set of properties proven unhittable in an original testbench to consider for coverage (see par [0001], Properties can be gauged for completeness to determine if all outputs of a design have been tested over all possible input conditions ….., [wherein the properties have been proven unhittable], par [0014-0015], A respective component of the mutatable RTL design 202 is modified by selecting a fault 204 to be introduced into the mutatable RTL design 202…., see par [0021], mutations can be injected into the RTL design 404 which is simulated);
selecting and mutating a gate of a device under test of said original testbench (see par [0013-0017], par [0020-0022], mutations can be injected into the RTL design 404 which is simulated, and the simulation test bench is then run to see whether the simulation based tests detect the fault…..[wherein design 404 has been selected and mutated]),
wherein a mutation property for said set of properties is introduced for each mutated gate of said device under test (see par [0017], one for each modified component, and mathematically proving that a set of properties hold for each respective Boolean logic representation of the design by a proof of properties 306…., see par [0020]); and
determining, while said gate is mutated, whether said gate is covered based on whether to said mutation property is hittable (see par [0020-0022], The property set is then re-run on the synthesized design with the mutation enabled. If the property set fails, then the mutation has been detected and the property….[wherein the property set fails which is property being hittable], synthesized for formal verification 110 to determine if the fault to the respective component 504 is detected…., see par [0017]).
However. Galpin fails to disclose:
a multiplexer is introduced between said gate and fan-out logic.
Thus, West discloses:
a multiplexer is introduced between said gate and fan-out logic (see Fig. 10-11, multiplexer 1000, gate pattern select 1100 and fan-out tester 1105, see par 34-36, crosspoint multiplexer 1000 has 64 input lines (labeled IN 00-63) and 64 output lines (labeled OUT 00:63). An input latch circuit 1002 is provided for each input line, the latch circuit comprising a latch 1004 and an output driver 1006. An output latch circuit 1008 is provided for each of output lines OUT…., see par 39-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of proving formal test bench fault detection coverage of Galpin to include a multiplexer between gate and fan-out logic in order to used to route Algorithmic Pattern Generator (APG) patterns to user-specified pins in a high-pin-count component test system for testing chips (see West par 41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 9-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation as in the claims.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7011. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
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 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.
/BRIAN NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights