DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the floating point input format, when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 19, the scope of the claimed invention is not clear, the preamble appears to be directed a system claim by reciting “A system”, however the body of the claim does not contain the components that the “system” comprises. The only recitation of the System is “system” in the preamble and not in the body of the claim. Additionally, the body of the claim contains method steps that are inconsistent with a system type claim directed to Processing equipment. When looking at “one or more verification tools” and “a formal verification tool” recited in the body of the claim, it appears that it refers only to software programs in [0011] of the specification. This is not sufficient to amount to hardware components of the system claim. As such, the claiming of a system type claim without the components the system comprises renders the claimed combination unclear. Applicant may consider amending the claim limitation to clearly define the scope of the claim invention.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the components of the “System” will be interpreted as processor and memory configured to perform the steps of the claim in accordance Figure 4 of the specification as filed.
Regarding claims 1-20, the following variables are undefined, which renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. The following variables are recited in all independent claims as well as some of the dependent claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
28
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
31
153
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
30
146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
30
107
media_image4.png
Greyscale
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se. The claimed invention is directed to a system comprising “one or more verification tools” and “a formal verification tool” recited in the body of the claim, it appears that it refers only to software programs in [0011] of the specification, which is claimed without any structural limitations. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 I. Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers software per se, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will continue analysis of the claimed invention as though it has been amended to include structural limitations.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-18 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 19 is directed to software per se, which is not a statutory category of invention. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-18 and 20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention, and claim 19 is not.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the abstract idea of simulating hardware design using a series of equations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "verifying a property of a hardware design for an integrated circuit to implement a product of power functions of the form x0t0 x ... x xntn, wherein t0 ... tn are fixed, rational numbers, x0 ... xn are floating point inputs, and n is an integer greater than or equal to one, the method comprising, … :” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up functions that are used in calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental processes including making a judgement about what variables represent a system and using those variables to evaluate the system. The limitation of "
PNG
media_image5.png
202
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental processes including a series of evaluations. The limitation of "
PNG
media_image6.png
180
684
media_image6.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental processes including a series of evaluations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “one or more verification tools” and “a formal verification tool” in claim 19, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 20, as well as “encoding on a computer readable storage medium the verified hardware design which, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions” in claim 18 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “wherein when the hardware design is processed at an integrated circuit manufacturing system, the hardware design configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions” in claim 14, as well as “further comprising, in response to the verifications being successful, generating at an integrated circuit manufacturing system the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions based on the hardware design” in claim 15 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively this could be viewed as mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional element of “one or more processors”, as well as “one or more verification tools” and “a formal verification tool” in claim 19, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 20, as well as “encoding on a computer readable storage medium the verified hardware design which, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions” in claim 18 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “wherein when the hardware design is processed at an integrated circuit manufacturing system, the hardware design configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions” in claim 14, as well as “further comprising, in response to the verifications being successful, generating at an integrated circuit manufacturing system the integrated circuit to implement the product of power functions based on the hardware design” in claim 15 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively this could be viewed as mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the equations used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the product of power functions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the single exponent sets, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the exponent sets, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining what the simulated does and additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining what the simulated does and additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining a model of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining a model of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining a model of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining a property of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining a property of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining a property of the hardware design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining an additional modification of the design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the verification of the modified design, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Rovers, Elliott, Kintali and Ziv. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the specific equations used to verify the property of a hardware design, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bittner et al. USPPN 2018/0157465: Also teaches the use of floating point operations with a focus on mantissas and one or more shared common exponents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights