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 Objections
In claim 1, at line 4, insert a colon after “to” for correct punctuation.
In claim 1, at line 14, after the semicolon insert “and” because the claim is missing the conjunction before the final limitation.
In claim 7, at line 3, replace “re-defined” with “pre-defined” to correct a typographical error.
In claim 11, at line 2, replace “connect” with “connection” to correct grammar.
In claim 11, at line 12, after the semicolon insert “and” because the claim is missing the conjunction before the final limitation.
In claim 20, at line 12, after the semicolon insert “and” because the claim is missing the conjunction before the final limitation.
Claims depending from independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are objected to for their dependency from objected base claims.
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 3, 12, 13, and 19 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 3, at line 4, the phrase “the layout object” lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. A “layout object” has not been previously established a priori.
In claim 12, at line 5, the phrase “the layout object” lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. A “layout object” has not been previously established a priori.
Claim 19 is rejected for its dependency on rejected base claim 12.
In claim 13, at line 2, the phrase “the host” lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim indefinite. A “host” has not been previously established a priori.
Allowable Subject Matter
1-20 would be allowed if amended to overcome the claim objections and any applicable 112(b) rejections as presented above.
Claim 1-10, 11-19, and 20 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a system, method, or CRM having all the combinations of steps or elements as recited in and required by independent claims 1, 11, or 20, particularly including, among other things, the following:
In claim 1 and similarly recited claims 11 and 20, identify a pre-defined routing region that includes or is closest to the specific point of the user action in the circuit layout; identify a first set of interconnect wire segments including the first interconnect wire segment, wherein each interconnect wire segment in the first set of interconnect wire segments intersects with the pre-defined routing region and belongs to the same net as the first interconnect wire segment; and automatically create and route a second set of interconnect wire segments within the pre-defined routing region, wherein each interconnect wire segment in the second set of interconnect wire segments connects two or more interconnect wire segments in the first set of interconnect wire segments together with one or more vias.
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
Prosecution Insights