DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 08/11/2024.
Claims 1 – 23 are presented for examination.
Priority
The ADS dated 06/13/2023 claims the benefit of provisional application US 63427089 dated 11/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 02/25/2024 and 08/11/2024 have been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 06/13/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 06/13/2023 has 137 words, 10 lines, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
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 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A system”.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: Yes. The claim recites “
performing one or more functions for the specimen with two or more protected data sources from two or more different entities, respectively; and
performing a virtual version of a process capable of being performed by the actual system for the physical version of the specimen.”
The examiner finds that these limitations recite collecting information from multiple sources and analyzing, evaluating, or otherwise processing that information to model a process that could be performed on a physical specimen. These activities constitute mental processes because they encompass observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. In particular, the claim recites the concept of “hardware-in-the-loop”, which, at the claimed level of generality, can be performed as a mental simulation in which a person uses proprietary or secret information held in the person’s mind to imagine how an imagined component may interact with physical system. Thus, the person mentally observes and evaluates the information, judges the expected interaction, and forms an opinion regarding how the imagined component would behave when interacting with the physical system.
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) indicates that, for example, claims that recite mental processes include a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, using protected data sources from different entities to perform functions for a specimen and performing a virtual version of a process is analogous to collecting and analyzing information in Electric Power Group. In particular, a person can observe or receive the output generated for the physical specimen, obtain information from the different data sources, and mentally review, compare, and apply that information in carrying out the recited functions for the process. Thus, at the level of generality recited, these limitations amount to observation, evaluation, and analysis of information that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 1 does not recite a particular mathematical model, simulation algorithm, or technological procedure by which the functions or the virtual version of the process is performed. Further, the claim only requires that the output is generated by an actual system for a physical version of a specimen and that the protected data sources are from different entities. Those limitations identify the sources of information but do not require the information-processing activities themselves to be performed in a manner that cannot practically be performed mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. While the claim recites:
a virtual system coupled to an actual system to thereby receive output generated by the actual system for a physical version of a specimen while the specimen is disposed within the actual system, wherein the virtual system comprises at least a computer system and a storage medium, wherein the virtual system is not capable of having the physical version of the specimen disposed therein
The examiner finds that the recited actual system generating output for a physical version of a specimen and the virtual system receiving that output are merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(g) indicates that, for example, performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the instant application, the actual system generating output for a physical version of the specimen and the virtual system receiving that output are analogous to the clinical testing in In re Grams, because the output merely provides input data used in performing the claimed functions and virtual process, including the mental simulation of how an imagined component may interact with a physical system based on protected information.
Further, the claim only requires that the virtual system is coupled to the actual system to receive the generated output. Merely coupling the virtual system to the actual system for receipt of the data does not require the virtual system to control the actual system, alter the operation of the actual system, or physically modify the specimen. Rather, these limitations merely provide the technological environment in which the claimed mental simulation and abstract data processing are performed.
Further, the examiner finds the recitation of a physical version of a specimen disposed within the actual system merely identifies the source and subject of the data being collected. The claim does not recite any particular physical operation performed on the specimen as a result of the virtual processing. Thus, reciting the actual system and physical specimen simply links the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use involving evaluation of a physical specimen. MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the examiner further finds that the recited computer system and storage medium do not provide an improvement to a computer or other technology because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that an additional element may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality.
In the instant application, the computer system and storage medium are analogous to computers invoked merely as a tool because they merely provide the computing and storage components used to perform the claimed information-processing functions and virtual process. They merely implement in the identified mental simulation using a computer rather than requiring the simulation to be performed in the human mind.
The claim does not recite specific improvements in the capabilities or operation of the computer system or storage medium. Unlike the claims in Enfish, the claim in the instant application merely uses the computer system and storage medium as tools to perform the claimed information-processing and virtual-processing functions and does not recite a specific improvement in the capabilities or operation of the computer system or storage medium.
Further, the limitations concerning the protected data sources, different entities, and physical version of the specimen merely define the information being processed and the technological environment in which the processing occurs. They do not require the virtual process to be applied in a manner that improves a particular technology or effects a physical transformation.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: No. The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
In the instant application, the computer system and storage medium are analogous to the generic computer implementation in Alice because they are merely used to receive, store, and process information in performing the claimed functions and virtual process. Further, the claim does not recite a particular computer architecture, storage technique, processing algorithm, or other technological features that improve the operation of the computer system or storage medium. Rather, the computer system and storage medium are merely used as tools to perform the claimed information-processing and virtual-processing functions.
The examiner further finds that the actual system generating output for the physical version of the specimen merely supplies data used in performing the abstract information-processing operations because MPEP § 2106.05(g) indicates that the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. For example, performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the instant application, generating output for the physical version of the specimen and providing that output to the virtual system is analogous to the clinical testing in In re Grams because the actual system merely supplies information used in carrying out the claimed functions and virtual process.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the remaining claim elements, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified in claim 1. In particular, a person can use protected or proprietary information retained in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with an actual physical system and how a process would be performed on a physical specimen. This constitutes a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves mental acts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured as a virtual inspector, which merely limits the claimed virtual processing to the technological environment of specimen inspection.
The examiner finds that this element merely designates the virtual system as a “virtual inspector” and thereby links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitation does not recite an additional inspection operation or specify how the virtual inspector performs an inspection. Therefore, the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates, for example, limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, configuring the virtual system as a virtual inspector is analogous to limiting the abstract idea to power-gird monitoring in Electric Power Group because it merely limits the claimed information-processing and evaluation to the particular technological environment of specimen inspection. Further, the claim only requires that the virtual system is configured as a virtual inspector. Merely configuring the virtual system as a virtual inspector does not change the mental nature of the information processing inherited from claim 1 and simply links the use of the abstract idea to a field of use known as specimen inspection. The claim does not recite a particular inspection technique, a particular manner in which the inspection data are generated or analyzed, or a particular technological operation by which the virtual inspector improves the operation of an inspection system. Nor does the claim physically recite physically modifying the specimen, controlling the actual system, or improving the operation of the physical inspection system. Therefore, the additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with the limitations of claim 1, the additional element merely designates the virtual system as a virtual inspector without reciting a particular inspection technique, processing mechanism, or technological improvement. When considered with claim 1, the limitation restricts the inherited mental simulation and information processing to specimen inspection but does not change how that processing is performed. Therefore, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further coupled to the actual system by a local network, which merely identifies the communication environment through which the virtual system and the actual system are connected.
The examiner finds that this element merely applies the abstract idea using a generic network and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates that, for example, requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In the instant application, coupling the virtual system to the actual system by a local network is analogous to receiving and sending information over a network in buySAFE because the local network merely provides the communication path by which the claimed information-processing operations are carried out. The claim does not require that the local network perform a particular technological function beyond communicating information between the virtual system and the actual system, nor does it recite an improvement in the functioning of the local network, the virtual system, or the actual system. Merely requiring a local network without reciting a particular networking mechanism or technological improvement simply limits the use of the abstract idea to a networked computer environment. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for receiving the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated data paths, respectively, and for storing the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated portions, respectively, of the storage medium, which merely restricts the manner in which the protected data sources are transmitted to and stored by the virtual system by requiring encryption and isolation.
The examiner finds that these elements merely add data-security functions to the abstract information processing and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that in determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." For example, a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code" provides an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In the instant application, unlike the specific computer-security improvement in Finjan, receiving the protected data sources on encrypted and isolated data paths and storing the protected data sources on encrypted and isolated portions of the storage medium merely requires the use of encryption and isolation to protect the information being processed. The claim does not recite a particular encryption technique, data-isolation mechanism, storage architecture, or other technological implementation that improves the manner in which encryption, isolation, or storage is performed.
Further, the claim only requires that the data paths and storage portions are encrypted and isolated. Merely requiring encryption and isolation of protected data during transmission and storage, without reciting a particular technological improvement in which those security functions are performed, does not improve the functioning of the computer system, storage medium, encryption technology, or data-security technology. Unlike Finjan, the claim does not recite particular security-processing steps that produce an identified improvement over existing computer-security technique. Nor does the claim recite an operation that improves the actual system, alters the physical specimen, or causes a physical process to be performed on the specimen. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the one or more functions using homomorphic encryption, which merely specifies the encryption technique used to perform the claimed functions at a high level of generality.
The examiner finds that this element merely requires the claimed functions to be performed using homomorphic encryption without reciting a particular technological implementation of the homomorphic encryption and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, performing the one or more functions using homomorphic encryption is analogous to the email screening in Symantec because the claim specifies the desired use of homomorphic encryption, but does not recite the specific steps or mechanism by which the homomorphic encryption is implemented to perform the claimed functions or provide a technological improvement. Further, the claim only requires that the one or more functions be performed using homomorphic encryption. Merely specifying homomorphic encryption, without reciting a particular implementation or improvement in the operation of the computer, virtual system, encryption technology, or actual system, does not impose a meaningful technological limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for generating output of the one or more functions and providing the output to a first of the two or more different entities without exposing any of the two or more protected data sources not from the first of the two or more different entities, which merely identifies which information is disclosed to which entity after the claimed functions are performed.
It therefore imposes an access or disclosure restriction on the information produced by the virtual system. The examiner finds that this element recites the desired information-disclosure result without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving that result and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, providing output to a first entity without exposing protected data sources from other entities is analogous to the result-based functional limitations in Symantec because the claim requires the desired information-disclosure result without reciting how the virtual system technologically prevents the protected data sources from being exposed to other entities. Merely requiring this disclosure restriction without reciting a particular data-separation architecture, access-control protocol, or technological mechanism for accomplishing the restriction does not provide an improvement to data-security or access-control technology. Nor does the claim improve recite an operation that improves the actual system, alters the physical specimen, or causes a physical process to be performed on the specimen. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for securely disposing of the two or more protected data sources after performing the one or more functions, which merely identifies a post-processing requirement for handling the protected data after the functions are performed.
The examiner finds that the element is merely post-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(g) indicates that, for example, the step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity", Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id.
In the instant application, securely disposing of the protected data sources after performing the one or more functions is analogous to the post-solution activity in Flook because the secure disposal occurs after the claimed information-processing functions have been performed and merely imposes a subsequent data-handling requirement on the protected data sources.
Further, the claim only requires securely disposing of the protected data sources without reciting a particular secure-disposal technique or technological mechanism for accomplishing the disposal. The claim does not recite, for example, a particular data-erasure technique, destruction of encryption keys, memory-overwriting procedure, or other technological mechanism by which the protected data are securely disposed. Merely requiring secure disposal after the claimed functions simply adds post-solution activity to the abstract information-processing operations. Nor does the claim recite an operation that improves the actual system, alters the physical specimen, or causes a physical process to be performed on the specimen. The limitation merely imposes a post-processing data-handling requirement on the abstract information-processing operations. Therefore, the additional limitations does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for restricting control of hardware encryption keys for the two or more protected data sources to only the two or more different entities, respectively, which merely identifies a restriction on which entity controls the encryption keys associated with each protected data source.
The examiner finds that the element merely recites the desired access-control result without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving that result and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that in determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." For example, MPEP § 2106.05(a) identifies a specific method of restricting software operation within a license as an improvement to computer functionality, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The court found a computer-security improvement patent eligible because the claims recited a specific technique for improving security.
In the instant application, restricting control of hardware encryption keys to respective entities is distinguishable from the specific security technique in Ancora because the claim merely requires the desired access-control result without reciting how the restriction is technologically implemented. Further, the claim only requires restricting control of the hardware encryption keys to the corresponding entities. Merely specifying who may control the keys, without reciting a particular key-management architecture, authentication mechanism, or cryptographic technique for enforcing that restriction, does not provide an improvement to hardware-key management or cryptographic technology. Nor does the claim recite an operation that improves the actual system, alters the physical specimen, or causes a physical process to be performed on the specimen. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for third party verification of safety of the two or more protected data sources within at least the computer system and the storage medium of the virtual system, which merely adds a third-party verification requirement for the safety of the protected data sources.
The examiner finds that this element merely recites the desired security-verification result without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving that result and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that in determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." For example, a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code" provides an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In the instant application, unlike the specific computer-security improvement in Finjan, third-party verification of the safety of the protected data sources merely requires that a third party perform the desired verification without reciting how the safety of the protected data sources is technologically determined or verified. The claim does not recite a particular verification technique, security protocol, attestation mechanism, analysis technique, or other technological implementation that improves computer security, data security, or the operation of the computer system or storage medium.
Further, the claim only requires that the verification be performed by a third party. Merely identifying who performs the verification, without reciting a particular verification technique, security protocol, attestation mechanism, or technological improvement to computer or storage security, does not provide a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for enforcing safety of the storage medium via the Rust programming language, which merely identifies the computer programming language used to implement the claimed safety functionality.
The examiner finds that this element merely identifies the implementation tool for achieving the claimed safety result without reciting a particular technological manner in which that result is achieved and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that an additional element may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. The court concluded that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality.
In the instant application, enforcing safety of the storage medium via the Rust programming language is distinguishable from the specific improvement in Enfish because the claim merely identifies Rust as the programming language used to achieve the claimed safety result without reciting a particular Rust-based mechanism that changes or improves the operation of the storage medium or computer system. The claim does not recite how Rust enforces the claimed safety, a particular memory-safety mechanism implemented using Rust, or a particular modification to the storage medium resulting from use of Rust.
Further, the claim only requires enforcing safety via the Rust programming language. Merely identifying a particular programming language used to implement the claimed safety function, without reciting a particular Rust mechanism or technological improvement arising from its use, does not provide an improvement to computer, storage, or programming-language technology. The limitation does not change the nature of those underlying information processing operations. Nor does the claim improve recite an operation that improves the actual system, alters the physical specimen, or causes a physical process to be performed on the specimen. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions using at least two of the two or more protected data sources, which merely specifies that the information from multiple protected sources is used together in performing the claimed function. The examiner finds that this element merely specifies which information is used as input to the claimed processing and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates, for example, limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, performing a function using at least two protected data sources is analogous to the collecting and analyzing of information in Electric Power Group because the claim merely requires information from multiple sources to be used together without reciting a particular technological mechanism for combining or processing that information.
Further, the claim only requires using at least two of the protected data sources. Merely specifying that multiple data sources are used as inputs simply further defines the information used in carrying out the abstract information-processing functions without providing an improvement to computer, storage, or virtual-system technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions using only a first of the two or more protected data sources and for performing a second of the one or more functions using only a second of the two or more protected data sources, which merely specifies which protected data source is used for each claimed function.
The examiner finds that these elements merely impose data-selection and data-separation rules on the claimed information processing without reciting a particular technological manner of implementing those rules and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, performing a first function using only a first protected data source and performing a second function using only a second protected data source is analogous to the result-based functional limitations in Symantec because the claim specifies data-selection and data-separation requirements without reciting how the separation is technologically enforced.
Further, the claim only requires that each function use only its respective protected data source. Merely specifying which data source may be used for each function further defines the information used in carrying out the claimed functions, without reciting a particular data-isolation architecture, access-control mechanism, or technological implementation for enforcing the separation. Thus, the additional limitations do not provide an improvement to computer or data-processing technology. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the virtual version of the process using output of at least one of the one or more functions, which merely specifies that the information generated by at least one of the one or more functions is used as input to the virtual process.
The examiner finds that this element merely defines how information flows between the claimed information-processing operations and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates, for example, limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, using output of at least one of the one or more functions in performing the virtual version of the process is analogous to the collection and analysis of information in Electric Power Group because the claim merely requires information generated by at least one information-processing operation to be supplied to another information-processing operation without reciting a particular technological mechanism for generating, communicating, or processing that output.
Further, the claim only requires performing the virtual version of the process using output of at least one of the one or more functions. Merely defining this input/data-flow relationship between the claimed operations further specifies the flow of information used in carrying out the abstract information-processing functions, without reciting a particular technological mechanism for generating, communicating, or processing that output, does not provide an improvement to computer, storage, or virtual-system technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions for the specimen with at least one of the two or more protected data sources in combination with results generated by performing the virtual version of the process, which merely requires information from a protected data source to be used together with results of the virtual process in performing the first function.
The examiner finds that this element merely specifies the information inputs used in performing the claimed function and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(h) indicates, for example, limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, performing a function using a protected data source in combination with results generated by the virtual process is analogous to collecting and analyzing information in Electric Power Group because the claim merely requires two types of information to be used together without reciting a particular technological mechanism for combining or processing that information.
Further, the claim only requires use of the protected data source in combination with the virtual-process results. Merely specifying that these information inputs are used together, without reciting how they are technologically combined or processed, does not provide an improvement to computer, storage, virtual-system, or other technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more functions comprise generating a three-dimensional physical representation of the physical version of the specimen, which merely specifies that the output of the function is a three-dimensional representation of the physical specimen.
The examiner finds that this element merely specifies the desired form of the output without reciting a particular technological manner of generating that output and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, generating a three-dimensional physical representation of the physical version of the specimen is analogous to the result-oriented limitations in Symantec because the claim merely requires generation of a three-dimensional representation without reciting how that representation is technologically generated. The claim does not recite a particular imaging technique, reconstruction algorithm, modeling technique, measurement process, or other technological mechanism for generating the three-dimensional physical representation.
Further, the claim only requires that the generated output be a three-dimensional physical representation. Merely specifying the form of the output, without reciting a particular modeling, imaging, reconstruction, or other technological mechanism for generating the representation, does not provide an improvement to 3D modeling, imaging, inspection, or computer technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 1, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 16 depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 15, wherein the three-dimensional physical representation is a specimen scale, three-dimensional, technology computer-aided design, physical representation of the physical version of the specimen, which merely specifies the scale and type of the 3D representation generated in claim 15.
The examiner finds that this element merely specifies the desired form of the output without reciting a particular technological manner of generating that output and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, requiring the physical representation to be a specimen-scale, three-dimensional, technology computer-aided design physical representation is analogous to the result-oriented limitations in Symantec because the claim merely specifies the desired form and scale of the representation without reciting how that representation is technologically generated. The claim does not recite a particular TCAD modeling technique, reconstruction algorithm, meshing technique, simulation mechanism, or other technological implementation for producing the specimen-scale physical representation.
Further, the claim only requires that the generated output be a specimen scale, three-dimensional, technology computer-aided design, physical representation of the physical version of the specimen. Merely narrowing the form and scale of the output, without reciting a particular technological mechanism for generating that representation, does not provide an improvement to TCAD, 3D modeling, imaging, inspection, or computer technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 15, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 17 depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination. The claim recites: The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more functions further comprise one or more of: injecting a defect into the three-dimensional physical representation; permutating dimensions of one or more features in the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of an inspection system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of a metrology system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; and simulating performance of a process tool based on the three-dimensional physical representation, and wherein the process tool is configured for performing a process on the physical version of the specimen that intentionally alters one or more characteristics of the physical version of the specimen. These limitations merely specify particular types of virtual modifications and simulations performed using the 3D representation.
The examiner finds that these elements merely recite the functional results of modifying the three-dimensional representation and simulating performance based on the three-dimensional representation without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving those results and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, injecting a defect, permutating feature dimensions, and simulating performance of inspection, metrology, or process systems are analogous to the result-oriented limitations in Symantec because the claim identifies the virtual operations and simulation results to be performed without reciting how those operations are technologically implemented.
Further, the claim only requires performing one or more of the recited virtual modifications or simulations based on the three-dimensional physical representation. Merely specifying these types of virtual operations, without reciting a particular defect-injection technique, dimensional-variation mechanism, simulation algorithm, or technological improvement to the underlying simulation technology, does not provide a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception.
Although the claim further recites that the process tool is configured for performing a process on the physical specimen that intentionally alters one or more characteristics of the specimen, the claim does not require the virtual-system simulation to control the process tool, cause the process to be performed, or otherwise produce a physical transformation of the specimen. Thus, this limitation merely identifies the type of process tool whose performance may be simulated and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 15, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 18 depends from claim 15, which depends from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more functions further comprise extracting a netlist for a device being formed on the physical version of the specimen based on the three-dimensional physical representation, which merely specifies generating a netlist from the 3D representation of the specimen.
The examiner finds that this element merely recites the result of deriving one form of information from another without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving that result and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, extracting a netlist from the three-dimensional physical representation is analogous to the result-based functional limitations in Symantec because the claim requires the result of deriving a netlist from the representation without reciting how the netlist is technologically extracted.
Further, the claim only requires extracting a netlist based on the three-dimensional physical representation. Merely specifying the particular information to be derived, without reciting a particular netlist-extraction algorithm, circuit-recognition technique, or other technological mechanism for generating the netlist, does not provide an improvement to netlist-extraction, circuit-analysis, or computer technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 15, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 depends through claim 18 and 15 from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more functions further comprise generating an electrical representation of the netlist, which merely specifies generating an electrical representation from the netlist generated in claim 18.
The examiner finds that this element merely recites the result of generating another form of information from the netlist without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving that result and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, generating an electrical representation of the netlist is analogous to the result-based functional limitations in Symantec because the claim requires the result of producing an electrical representation from the netlist without reciting how that representation is technologically generated.
Further, the claim only requires generating an electrical representation of the netlist. Merely specifying the form of information to be generated from the netlist, without reciting a particular circuit-modeling technique, electrical-simulation mechanism, or other technological implementation for generating the representation, does not provide an improvement to electrical modeling, circuit simulation, or computer technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 18, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 depends through claim 19, 18 and 15 from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 19, wherein the electrical representation of the netlist is a specimen scale, technology computer-aided design, electrical representation of the netlist, which merely specifies the scale and type of the electrical representation generated in claim 19.
The examiner finds that this element merely further specifies the form and scale of the information generated from the netlist without reciting a particular technological manner of producing that representation and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, a general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant application, generating a specimen-scale TCAD electrical representation of the netlist is analogous to the result-oriented limitations in Symantec because the claim specifies the desired form and scale of the electrical representation to be produced without reciting how that representation is technologically generated. The claim does not recite a particular TCAD modeling technique, circuit-simulation mechanism, electrical-model generation technique, or other technological implementation for producing the specimen-scale electrical representation.
Further, the claim only requires that the electrical representation to be a specimen-scale technology computer-aided design representation. Merely narrowing the form and scale of the representation, without reciting a particular TCAD modeling technique, electrical-simulation mechanism, or other technological implementation for generating the representation, does not provide an improvement to TCAD, electrical modeling, circuit analysis, or computer technology. Therefore, the additional limitation does not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 19, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21. The claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 21 depends through claims 19, 18 and 15 from claim 1, and therefore includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can use protected or proprietary information held in the person’s mind to imagine how a virtual component would interact with a physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The claim recites: The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more functions further comprise one or more of: permutating one or more electrical parameters of the electrical representation; injecting a fault into the electrical representation; generating a virtual static test of the electrical representation to find static faults; and generating a virtual functional test of the electrical representation to find parametric faults, which merely specifies particular types of virtual modification and testing performed on the electrical representation.
The examiner finds that these elements merely recite the functional results of modifying and virtually testing the electrical representation without reciting a particular technological manner of achieving those results and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(a) indicates that in determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
In the instant application, unlike the specific computer-implemented rules in McRo, permuting electrical parameters, injecting a fault, and generating virtual static or functional tests merely identifying the virtual modification and testing operations to be performed without reciting a particular technological mechanism for performing those operations. The claim does not recite a particular parameter-permutation technique, fault-injection mechanism, static-test algorithm, functional-test algorithm, or other technological implementation that improves electrical testing, circuit simulation, fault analysis, or computer technology.
Further, the claim only requires one or more of the recited virtual modification or testing operations. Merely specifying these types of parameter modification, fault injection, and virtual testing, without reciting a particular fault-injection technique, test-generation mechanism, simulation algorithm, or other technological implementation, does not provide an improvement to electrical testing, simulation or computer technology. Unlike McRO, the claim does not recite specific rules or processing steps that improve an existing technological process. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination with claim 19, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22. This claim recites substantially the same information-processing operations as claim 1 in the form of program instructions stored as a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Because claim 22 recites substantially the same information-processing operations as claim 1, it includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can hold the protected or proprietary information in the person’s mind and use it to imagine how the virtual component would interact with the physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The examiner finds that storing instructions for performing the claimed information-processing operations on a non-transitory computer-readable medium merely provides program instructions for implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components and does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
In the instant application, storing program instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the same information-processing and virtual-processing operations recited in claim 1 is analogous to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer in Alice because the computer-readable medium merely stores the instructions through which the claimed operations are carried out. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the computer-readable medium itself, a particular storage architecture, instruction-execution mechanism, or other technological feature that improves computer operation.
Further, the claim only requires a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions for performing those operations. Merely placing the claimed abstract operations in computer-readable-medium form, without reciting a particular technological improvement to the medium, storage technique, instruction execution, or computer operation, does not provide a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception. The additional computer-readable-medium limitations also do not provide an inventive concept.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations implement the same abstract information-processing operations using a computer-readable medium and do not add a technological implementation that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 22 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 23. This claim recites substantially the same information-processing operations as claim 1 in computer-implemented method form, including performing one or more functions using protected data sources and performing a virtual version of a process using output generated by an actual system.
Because claim 23 recites substantially the same information-processing operations as claim 1, it includes the mental process identified for claim 1. As explained above, a person can hold the protected or proprietary information in the person’s mind and use it to imagine how the virtual component would interact with the physical system. This is a mental simulation analogous to hardware-in-the-loop analysis and involves observation, evaluation, judgment, and imagination.
The examiner finds that implementing the claimed information-processing and virtual-processing operations as a computer-implemented method merely implements the same abstract idea using a generic computer and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because MPEP § 2106.05(f) indicates that claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
In the instant application, performing substantially the same information-processing and virtual -processing operations recited in claim 1 as a computer-implemented method is analogous to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer in Alice because the claim merely places the same abstract operations in method form without reciting a particular technological mechanism for accomplishing those operations.
Further, the claim only requires computer implementation of the recited information-processing and virtual-processing steps. Merely expressing the same abstract operations as a computer-implemented method, without reciting a particular improvement to computer operation, virtual-system operation, actual-system operation, or another technology, does not provide a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception. The additional computer-implemented method limitations also do not provide an inventive concept.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations merely implement the same abstract information-processing operations in method form and do not add a particular technological implementation that transforms the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 23 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 (US 20140241610 A1) in view of Kumar_2021 (US 20210273921 A1).
Claim 1. Duffy_2014 make obvious A system configured for performing one or more functions with (par 10: “The system includes two or more
actual systems configured to perform one or more processes on one or more specimens while the one or more specimens are disposed within the two or more actual systems. … The system also includes
one or more virtual systems coupled to the two or more actual systems to thereby receive output generated by the two or more actual systems and to send information to the two or more actual systems. The one or more virtual systems are configured to perform one or more functions using at least some of the output received from the two or more actual systems. The one or more virtual systems are not capable of having the one or more specimens disposed therein.”; par 52: “In addition, more than one workstation or user can access the virtual system simultaneously, remotely, and/or wirelessly. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, multiple workstations 118 and 120 can be coupled to the virtual system simultaneously. In this manner, multiple users may access the virtual system or data stored therein and use the virtual system to perform one or more of the functions described further herein.”; par 53: “the virtual system may resemble a fully functioning computer system in that a user can use the virtual system directly to perform one or more functions using any of the data stored therein.”; par 49: “In addition, more than one workstation or user can access the virtual system simultaneously, remotely, and/or wirelessly. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, multiple workstations 118 and 120 can be coupled to the virtual system simultaneously. In this manner, multiple users may access the virtual system or
data stored therein and use the virtual system to perform one or more of the functions described further herein.”), and wherein the virtual system is configured for: performing one or more functions for the specimen with two or more (par 57: “The systems described herein can also be used as a proxy for a full inspection system (i.e., the inspection system including the imaging elements). For example, the virtual system(s) may be configured to use image data stored therein to perform one or more functions that can be performed by a full inspection system.”).
Duffy_2014 does not teach protected data sources from different entities.
Kumar_2021; however, renders obvious protected data sources from different entities (par 10: “Aspects of the present disclosure relate to secure computation of multiparty data. The multiparty data used herein refers to multiple sets of data from different entities (e.g., different servers associated with different clients). One data set can be provided by a server of one client, and another data set can be from a server of a different client. Although the clients may not want others to have access to their own data set, the clients may want to use each other's data set for a limited purpose such as performing a particular computation operation on multiparty data. In order to perform such a computation, the clients may entrust a third party server to perform the computation. In this way, the clients can benefit from each other's data without compromising privacy of each other's data. However, there is no guarantee that the entrusted third party has performed the computation m a secure manner.”; par 11: “Aspects of the present disclosure address the above and other deficiencies by ensuring that computation of multiparty data is performed in a secure environment and performing the computation in such an environment. A secure execution server may be utilized to verify that a requested computation or operation of the multiparty data would be performed in a secure environment (e.g., an enclave) and after verification, perform the operation in the secure environment. For example, client servers can encrypt their own data and provide encrypted data to the secure execution server while providing the encryption keys to a key management server. One of the client servers may request secure computation or secure execution of an operation with data from other client server(s) to the secure execution server. In response, the secure execution server can create a secure environment or initiate an enclave for the requested operation. Subsequently, the secure execution server can communicate with an execution management server to verify that the operation is to be performed in the secure environment, using attestation data and a corresponding validation data. After the verification, the secure execution server can communicate with the key management server to obtain encryption keys for each data. Subsequently, the secure execution server can decrypt data and perform the requested operation in the secure environment. The client server(s) can request the execution management server, in addition or in the alternative to the secure execution server, that the operation be performed with the multiparty data in a secure environment. In response, the execution management server can provide attestation data that can later be used in the verification described above.”);
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that both concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 teaches a system that consists of a virtual system coupled with an actual system, where in the virtual system performs functions using stored specimen-related data. Kumar_2021 teaches processing protected data from different entities in a secure environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the virtual system coupled with an actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions using stored specimen-related data taught by Duffy_2014 with secure processing of the protected data from different entities securely taught by Kumar_2021 for the benefit of allowing protected data supplied by different entities to be used in the virtual-system functions while reducing unauthorized disclosure of the respective entities’ data.
Claim 2. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured as a virtual inspector (par 54: “The embodiments described herein can include any suitable number of actual systems and virtual systems. Therefore, the embodiments described herein can extend the virtual inspector concept by leveraging inspection and review virtualization to its logical extreme.”).
Claim 6. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kumar_2021 further renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for generating output of the one or more functions and providing the output to a first of the two or more different entities without exposing any of the two or more protected data sources not from the first of the two or more different entities (par 10: “the clients can benefit from each other's data without compromising privacy of each other's data.”; par 17: “one client server can have a restricted access (e.g., no access) to data from the other client server, and vice versa.”; clm 6: “receiving the encrypted first data from a first client server, wherein the first client server has a restricted access to the second data; and receiving the encrypted second data from a second client server, wherein the second client server has a restricted access to the first data.”; Note: Thus, Kumar_2021 renders obvious processing data from different entities while restricting one entity from accessing data of another entity. par 26: “the processing logic can provide an output of the operation to an entity that requested an execution of the operation … an encryption key that is associated with the entity that requested the execution of the operation to encrypt the output of the operation.”; Note: Thus Kumar_2021 further renders obvious generating and providing an output of the operation to one of the entities. par 27: “the processing logic can provide the output of the operation to the client server that requested to perform the operation … a policy can specify that a result of an operation should be provided only to an entity that has requested the respective operation to be performed … whether or not and also, to whom to provide the output of the operation”; Note: Kumar_2021 renders obvious selectively providing the output to the requesting entity’s access to protected data associated with the other entities, thereby providing the output to one entity without exposing protected data sources associated with the other entities.)
Claim 9. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kumar_2021 further renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for third party verification of safety of the two or more protected data sources within at least the computer system and the storage medium of the virtual system (par 20: “the processing logic can provide the attestation data to another system or another enclave … another system … can validate or verify the attestation data.”; par 21: “the processing logic can receive verification data of the attestation data from the other system or the other enclave. By receiving the verification data, the processing logic has proven that the enclave for the operation has been established in a secure hardware environment.”; clm 2: “providing attestation data associated with the operation to another enclave; receiving verification data of the attestation data from the another enclave; and determining, based on the verification data, that the operation is authorized to be performed with the first data and the second data at the enclave.”; Note: Thus, Kumar_2021 renders obvious verification by another system or enclave that the enclave containing the protected data is established in a secure hardware environment and that the operation involving the protected data is authorized, thereby rendering obvious third-party verification of the safety of the protected data sources within the virtual system.).
Claim 11. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kumar_2021 further renders obvious wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions using at least two of the two or more protected data sources (par 18: “the operation to be performed with the two data can include combining the two data, determining common data entries in the two data, combining the two data while removing any overlapping data entries, and any other operations to process multiple sets of data.”).
Claim 12. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Kumar_2021 further renders obvious wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions using only a first of the two or more protected data sources and for performing a second of the one or more functions using only a second of the two or more protected data sources (par 23: “the processing logic can store or have access to data policies describing which operation can be performed on which data … the processing logic can determine a data policy defining an authorized use of the operation specified in the request.”; Note: Thus, Kumar_2021 renders obvious separately controlling which operations may be performed on respective protected data sources according to data policies. Accordingly, Kumar_2021 renders obvious performing a first operation using only a first protected data source authorized for the first operation and performing a second operation using only a second protected data source authorized for the second operation, thereby restricting each operation to its respective authorized protected data source and preventing unauthorized use of the other protected data sources.).
Claim 22. This claim recites limitations substantially corresponding to those of claim 1 in computer-readable-medium form. Accordingly, Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious the limitations of claim 22 for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Duffy_2014 further renders obvious A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing program instructions executable on a computer system for performing the recited functions (par 102: “as shown in FIG. 4, non-transitory computer-readable medium 400 includes program instructions 402 executable on computer system 404.”; par 104: “Program instructions 402 implementing methods such as those described herein may be stored on computer-readable medium 400. The computer-readable medium may be a storage medium such as a magnetic or optical disk, a magnetic tape, or any other suitable non-transitory computer-readable medium known in the art.”).
Claim 23. This claim recites limitations substantially corresponding to those of claim 1 in computer-implemented method form. Accordingly, Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious the limitations of claim 23 for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. In particular, the functions performed by the virtual system of Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 to use protected data sources from different entities, render obvious performing the corresponding functions as computer-implemented method steps.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Coldren_2006 (US 20060025948 A1).
Claim 3. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further coupled to the actual system (par 10: “The system includes two or more actual systems configured to perform one or more processes on one or more specimens while the one or more specimens are disposed within the two or more actual systems.”).
Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious coupling the virtual system to the actual system by a local network.
Coldren_2006; however, renders obvious coupling the virtual system to the actual system by a local network (par 21: “FIG. 2 illustrates a diagrammatic view of an inspection system 200 according to one embodiment of the present invention. Inspection system 200 includes an inspection device 202 that is connected to a review station 204 through a communication channel 206 … Communication channel 206 can be a variety of communication channels that include local area networks and wide area networks.”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coldren_2006 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources and communication of such data between systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coldren_2006. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches a virtual system is coupled with an actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with protected data sources from different entities. Coldren_2006 teaches that communication between different systems may be provided through a local area network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with protected data sources from different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the local-area-network communication taught by Coldren_2006 for the benefit of providing a known network communication path for exchanging data between the virtual system and the actual system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Coleman_2013 (US 20130117556 A1) in view of Hartley_2016.
Claim 4. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for receiving the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated data paths, respectively, and for storing the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated portions, respectively, of the storage medium.
Coleman_2013; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for receiving the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated data paths, respectively, and (par 10: "The data aggregate device is configured to encrypt the secure data into a plurality of independently encrypted data packets and to provide the independently encrypted data packets over a plurality of isolated data paths."; par 12: "The method further includes transmitting the first encrypted data packet from the data aggregate device to a first isolated data path and the second encrypted data packet from the data aggregate device to a second isolated data path."; par 31: "the independently encrypted data packets can be provided via isolated data paths such that one party cannot attack or manipulate data being received by another party."; Note: Thus, Colemen_2013 renders obvious the use of a plurality of independently encrypted data packets transmitted over respective isolated data paths for maintaining separation and security of data associated with different parties.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coleman_2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources and passed between different systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coleman_2013. The rationale for doing so would have been Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with an actual system, wherein the virtual system performs one or more functions with protected data sources from different entities. Coleman_2013 expressly teaches that data associated with different parties may be independently encrypted and transmitted over isolated data paths to prevent one party from attacking or manipulating data associated with another party. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the virtual system coupled with actual system, wherein the virtual system performs one or more functions with protected data sources from different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the independently encrypted data packets transmitted over isolated data paths taught by Coleman_2013 for the benefit of reducing the risk that compromise, interception, or manipulation of one protected data source or communication path affects protected data associated with another entity or communication path.
Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Coleman_2013 does not render obvious storing the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated portions, respectively, of the storage medium.
Hartley_2016; however, renders obvious storing the two or more protected data sources on two or more encrypted and isolated portions, respectively, of the storage medium (col 12, line 46: “Software full-disk encryption may be applied in control domain 243 (e.g., Xen control domain) to all partitions. Different encryption keys may be used for different partitions, if persona virtual disk images are stored on separate partitions, and loaded in control domain 243 when needed.”; col 15, line 12: “Persona/resource manager 244 can load and unload encryption keys associated with software full-disk encryption depending on which persona is active, making the data of inactive personas safely encrypted and inaccessible to other personas.”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coleman_2013 and Hartley_2016 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources and passed between different systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Coleman_2013 and Hartley_2016. The rationale for doing so would have been Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Coleman_2013 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein protected data from different entities are received over isolated encrypted data paths. Hartley_2016 expressly teaches separate encrypted storage partitions so that data associated with one persona are inaccessible to another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the virtual system coupled with an actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with protected data sources from different entities and receives the protected data over independently encrypted and isolated data paths taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Coleman_2013 with the separate encrypted storage partitions taught by Hartley_2016 for the benefit of limiting the effect of unauthorized access or compromise of one storage portion on data maintained in another storage portion, thereby improving the security and confidentiality of protected data associated with different entities.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Polyakov_2021 (US 20210399874 A1).
Claim 5. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the one or more functions using homomorphic encryption.
Polyakov_2021; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the one or more functions using homomorphic encryption (clm 1: “A method for collaborative multiparty homomorphic encryption, comprising:
receiving a linear common public key that is collaboratively generated by a plurality of parties each contributing a linear public key share associated with the party, which in combination with linear public key shares associated with each of the other parties, generates the linear common public key that is a sum of the linear public key shares associated with the respective plurality of parties;
encrypting each of two ciphertexts with the linear common public key;
combining the two ciphertexts by a non-linear computation to generate a result ciphertext encrypted by a higher order non-linear public key;
re-encrypting the result ciphertext with a re-linearization key to swap encryption keys from the non-linear public key to a linear public key; and
distributing the re-encrypted result ciphertext to the plurality of parties to each partially decrypt the re-encrypted result ciphertext by a linear secret key share associated with the party, which in combination with partial decryptions of the re-encrypted result ciphertext by each of the other parties, fully decrypts the result by a linear common secret key that is a sum of the secret key shares of the respective plurality of parties.”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Polyakov_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Polyakov_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with protected data sources. Polyakov_2021 teaches performing computations on data using homomorphic encryption. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with the protected data sources taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the homomorphic encryption technique taught by Polyakov_2021 for the benefit of enabling secure processing and sharing of protected data among different systems or entities while reducing exposure of the underlying data during processing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Osaki_2007 (US 20070220277 A1).
Claim 7. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not teach wherein the virtual system is further configured for securely disposing of the two or more protected data sources after performing the one or more functions.
Osaki_2007; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for securely disposing of the two or more protected data sources after performing the one or more functions (par 2: “data … must be retained for a certain time period and then, after the specified expiration date, securely disposed of.”; par 4: “disposal of a key which encrypts such data has a similar effect to data disposal.”; par 61: “The encryption key disposal time … is the time when the key used for converting each LU can be disposed of. This time indicates when the data is erased.”; par 62: “the processor … disposes of the key for the corresponding LU.”; par 63: “After the conversion process has been completed, and after the expiration date of the volume data, the processor … may discard the encryption key … the loss of the key has the same effect as a secure erasure of the stored data.”; clm 1: “Dispose of the encryption key.”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Osaki_2007 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing of data received from multiple systems or sources and protection of such data during and after its use. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Osaki_2007. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system performs one or more functions with protected data sources from different entities. Osaki_2007 teaches secure disposal of stored encrypted data after its intended use by disposing of the corresponding encryption key, wherein loss of the encryption key has the same effect as secure erasure of the stored data. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system performs functions with the protected data sources from different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the secure data disposal technique taught by Osaki_2007 for the benefit of preventing unauthorized access to protected data after completion of its intended processing or use, thereby improving the security of protected data received from different systems or entities.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Yang_2015 (US 9735962 B1).
Claim 8. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for restricting control of hardware encryption keys for the two or more protected data sources to only the two or more different entities, respectively.
Yang_2015; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for restricting control of hardware encryption keys for the two or more protected data sources to only the two or more different entities, respectively (par 59: “an encrypted data encryption key (DEK), an encrypted key encryption key (KEK), and an encrypted controller encryption key (CEK) are stored in a memory of an encryption accelerator having a receptacle for a removable data storage device … decrypting the encrypted controller encryption key, using a controller private key stored on a removable data storage device and accessed by the encryption accelerator through the receptacle of the encryption accelerator”; clm 8: “a hardware encryption accelerator … includes integrated circuit logic, a receptacle for a removable data storage device … decrypting the encrypted controller encryption key, using a controller private key stored on the removable data storage device and accessed by the encryption accelerator”; clm 13: “store the controller private key into the removable data storage device through the receptacle of the key management system”; col 12, line 5: “ The plaintext CEK, KEK and DEK are never passed from the encryption accelerator 154 to the storage processor 120 … only accessible within the encryption accelerator 154.”; Note: Thus, Yang_2015 renders obvious hardware-based restriction of access to encryption keys such that the keys are accessible only through designated hardware and are not exposed outside the encryption accelerator.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Yang_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and protection of data received from multiple systems or sources. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Yang_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities and access to the protected data is restricted between the different entities. Yang_2015 teaches securing and restricting access to encryption keys in a data storage system based on hardware-controlled access to the encryption keys. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities and the access to the protected data is restricted between the different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the technique of restricting access to encryption keys through designated hardware taught by Yang_2015, by applying the hardware-controlled key-access technique to the encryption key corresponding to each entity’s respective protected data source, such that the hardware encryption keys corresponding to the respective protected data sources are controlled by the respective entities, for the benefit of securely controlling the encryption keys for the respective protected data sources, preventing unauthorized access to the encryption keys, and improving the security of the protected data received from different systems or entities.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of LeMay_2022 (US 20220214881 A1).
Claim 10. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations in claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for enforcing safety of the storage medium via the Rust programming language.
LeMay_2022; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for enforcing safety of the storage medium via the Rust programming language (par 44: “Rust achieves memory safety without garbage collection, and reference counting is optional.”; par 45: “Rust's type system eliminates spatial safety errors (e.g., Out-Of-Bounds (OOB) accesses) by checking bounds of memory objects. Rust also eliminates temporal safety errors. The error called “Use After Free” (UAF) is prevented by tracking all references to each object so that the object is only freed after the object is no longer referenced.”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and LeMay_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and protection of data received from multiple systems or sources and the safe processing and storage of such data. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and LeMay_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities, with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities. LeMay_2022 teaches using the Rust programming language to enforce memory safety by preventing spatial and temporal memory errors. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities, with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the Rust memory-safety technique taught by LeMay_2022 to implement software that accesses and manages the storage medium of the virtual system, thereby enforcing safety of the storage medium via the Rust programming language, for the benefit of preventing unsafe memory access during processing of the protected data, thereby improving the security and reliability of the protected data processing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Bhaskar_2017 (US 20170200260 A1).
Claim 13. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the virtual version of the process using output of at least one of the one or more functions.
Bhaskar_2017; however, renders obvious wherein the virtual system is further configured for performing the virtual version of the process using output of at least one of the one or more functions (par 59: “The model is configured for performing one or more first functions using the acquired output as input to thereby generate simulated output for the specimen … The one or more computer subsystems are further configured for performing one or more second functions for the specimen using the simulated output.”; Note: Thus Bhaskar_2017 renders obvious performing one or more functions to generate simulated output and performing another function for the specimen using the simulated output, thereby performing a function using output of at least one other function.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Bhaskar_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and evaluation of data received from multiple systems or sources for performing functions associated with a specimen. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Bhaskar_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities. Bhaskar_2017 teaches performing functions for the specimen using the simulated output. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021, with the technique of performing functions for the specimen using the simulated output taught by Bhaskar_2017 for the benefit of improving specimen evaluation by using both available specimen information and simulated process results in performing the function.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Bhaskar_2017B (US 10043261 B2).
Claim 14. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions for the specimen with at least one of the two or more protected data sources in combination with results generated by performing the virtual version of the process.
Bhaskar_2017B; however, renders obvious wherein performing the one or more functions comprises performing a first of the one or more functions for the specimen with at least one of the two or more protected data sources in combination with results generated by performing the virtual version of the process (clm 1: “acquiring information for a specimen, wherein the information comprises at least one of an actual optical image of the specimen, an actual electron beam image of the specimen, and design data for the specimen;”; clm 27: “inputting the information for the specimen into a learning based model … thereby generate simulated output for the specimen.”; clm 7: “the information that is input to the learning based model comprises the actual optical image of the specimen and the design data for the specimen, and wherein the simulated output comprises a simulated electron beam image for the specimen.”; col 17, line 31: “the simulated output that corresponds to different portions of the input may be identified … and used to perform one or more functions with or on the input.”; Col 32, line 33: “the one or more computer subsystems are configured for detecting defects on the specimen based on a combination of the one or more low resolution images and the high-resolution image.”; Note: Thus Bhaskar_2017B renders obvious performing a function for a specimen using specimen information in combination with simulated output generated from the specimen information.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Bhaskar_2017B are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and evaluation of data received from multiple systems or sources for performing functions associated with a specimen. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Bhaskar_2017B. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities. Bhaskar_2017B teaches performing a function for a specimen using specimen input information together with simulated output generated for the specimen. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021, with the technique taught by Bhaskar_2017B of performing a function for a specimen using specimen information together with simulated output, such that the protected specimen information is used in combination with results generated by the virtual process in performing the function, for the benefit of improving specimen evaluation by using both available specimen information and simulated process results in performing the function.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 (US 10410862 B2).
Claim 15. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 does not render obvious wherein the one or more functions comprise generating a three-dimensional physical representation of the physical version of the specimen.
Terterian_2015; however, renders obvious wherein the one or more functions comprise generating a three-dimensional physical representation of the physical version of the specimen (col 1, line 43: “generating a three-dimensional dopant distribution from adding the first dopant under the first set of process conditions with the mask, by combining the two-dimensional lateral profile of the dopant with the one-dimensional depth profile of the dopant.”; col 7, line 35: “a 3D profile is generated by multiplying the 2D lateral profile and the 1D depth profile.”; line 38: “a 3D boundary structure is generated by boundary emulation”; line 40: “the 3D profile is interpolated onto the mesh of the 3D boundary structure”; line 42: “the 3D structure is completed for the particular implant of the particular dopant.”; Note: Thus, Terterian_2015 renders obvious generating a three-dimensional physical representation of a semiconductor specimen by generate a 3D profile and 3D boundary structure and interpolating the 3D profile onto the mesh of the 3D boundary structure.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and modeling of information associated with a physical system or specimen and semiconductor specimen evaluation or simulation. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 teaches the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities, with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities. Terterian_2015 teaches generating a three-dimensional representation of a semiconductor specimen including its physical structure and dopant distribution. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual system coupled with the actual system, wherein the virtual system processes protected data sources from different entities, with access to the protected data restricted between the different entities taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 with the three-dimensional modeling technique taught by Terterian_2015 for the benefit of representing both lateral and depth variations in the dopant distribution of the specimen during virtual semiconductor-process simulation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Vemulapati_2020 (Integrated Gate Commutated Thyristor: From Trench to Planar, Umamaheswara Vemulapati, etc., ISPSD, Sept 13 - 18, 2020, Vienna, Austria).
Claim 16. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Terterian_2015 further renders obvious wherein the three-dimensional physical representation is a (title: “3D TCAD simulation”; col 3, line 8: “a system for simulating integrated circuit processing”; line 10: “The data processor is configured to transform a first representation of an integrated circuit undergoing processing into a second representation of the integrated circuit undergoing processing.”; line 23: “FIG. 1 is a simplified process flow of the improved simulation of a 3D fabrication process.”; line 3: “generating a three-dimensional dopant distribution from adding the first dopant under the first set of process conditions with the mask, by combining the two-dimensional lateral profile of the dopant with the one-dimensional depth profile of the dopant.”).
Terterian_2015 does not render obvious specimen scale.
Vemulapati_2020; however, renders obvious specimen scale (page 3, par 1: “a mixed-mode TCAD model is developed to represent the full wafer device under test … The FEM cells have identical doping profile and dimensions to those fabricated but represent different regions in the wafer”; Note: Thus, Vemulapati_2020 renders obvious specimen-scale TCAD modeling by modeling the full wafer device under test.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Vemulapati_2020 are analogous art because they all concern computer-based modeling and simulation of semiconductor specimens and semiconductor processing. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Vemulapati_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 teaches generating a three-dimensional TCAD representation of semiconductor structures. Vemulapati_2020 teaches full-wafer, specimen-scale TCAD modeling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three-dimensional TCAD modeling taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 with the full-wafer TCAD modeling taught by Vemulapati_2020 for the benefit of extending the TCAD representation from localized semiconductor structures to the full wafer device under test, thereby allowing the modeled physical characteristics of different regions of the wafer to be evaluated within a common device-level simulation.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Bhaskar_2017C (US 20170193400 A1).
Claim 17. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 does not render obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise one or more of: injecting a defect into the three-dimensional physical representation; permutating dimensions of one or more features in the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of an inspection system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of a metrology system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; and simulating performance of a process tool based on the three-dimensional physical representation, and wherein the process tool is configured for performing a process on the physical version of the specimen that intentionally alters one or more characteristics of the physical version of the specimen.
Bhaskar_2017C; however, renders obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise one or more of: injecting a defect into the three-dimensional physical representation; permutating dimensions of one or more features in the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of an inspection system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; simulating performance of a metrology system based on the three-dimensional physical representation; and simulating performance of a process tool based on the three-dimensional physical representation, and wherein the process tool is configured for performing a process on the physical version of the specimen that intentionally alters one or more characteristics of the physical version of the specimen (par 89: “the output of the other model may represent what the specimens would look like in 2D or 3D space of the specimens.”; par 90: “an additional capability that can be applied is simulation of the inspector whose recipe is being developed. An example of such a model is WiNsim, which is commercially available from KLA-Tencor, and which can rigorously model the response of an inspector using an electromagnetic (EM) wave solver.”; Note: The claim recites the listed functions as “one or more of” listed functions. Bhaskar_2017C renders obvious at least the recited alternative of simulating performance of an inspection system based on the three-dimensional physical representation.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Bhaskar_2017C are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing, modeling, and simulation of semiconductor specimens. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Bhaskar_2017C. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 teaches generating and using a three-dimensional physical representation of a semiconductor specimen. Bhaskar_2017C teaches generating a modeled representation of a specimen in three-dimensional space and simulating the response of an inspection system to the modeled specimen. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three-dimensional physical representation taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 with the inspection-system simulation taught by Bhaskar_2017C for the benefit of accurately predicting and evaluating the response of an inspection system to the modeled semiconductor specimen without requiring destructive physical test.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 (US 9372946 B2).
Claim 18. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 renders obvious all the limitations in claim 15. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 does not teach wherein the one or more functions further comprise extracting a netlist for a device being formed on the physical version of the specimen based on the three-dimensional physical representation.
Sunter_2014; however, renders obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise extracting a netlist for a device being formed on the physical version of the specimen based on the three-dimensional physical representation (col 2, line 29: “Eventually, a layout, like that in FIG. 1c , is created for the circuit, in which the different circuit elements are graphically arranged, a netlist, like that in FIG. 2b , is extracted by software, using the design-intent netlist for guidance, and a resulting extracted netlist (referred to as a physical-implementation netlist)”; col 7, line 46: “In operation 10, netlists of each subcircuit of the CUT are sorted into netlists extracted from a layout or physical arrangement of the elements of the subcircuit (physical-implementation netlists), netlists representing the design intent that are possibly produced from a schematic of the circuit (design-intent netlist), and netlists that model a behavior of the subcircuit (model netlists).”; Note: Sunter_2014 renders obvious extracting a netlist from a layout or physical arrangement of circuit elements. When implemented on the three-dimensional physical representation taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015, Sunter_2014 renders obvious extracting a netlist for a device being formed on the physical version of the specimen based on the three-dimensional physical representation.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Sunter_2014 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor since they all concern computer-based processing and modeling of physical structure and evaluating the behavior of such modeled structures. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Sunter_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 teaches generating and using a three-dimensional physical representation of a semiconductor specimen. Sunter_2014 teaches extracting a netlist from a layout or physical arrangement of circuit elements. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three-dimensional physical representation taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 with the netlist extraction technique taught by Sunter_2014 by extracting the netlist from the physical arrangement of circuit elements represented in the three-dimensional physical representation, for the benefit of translating a physical circuit layout into an accurate logical circuit representation, thereby facilitating advanced circuit simulation and behavioral analysis.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 (US 20140325460 A1).
Claim 19. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 18. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 does not render obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise generating an electrical representation of the netlist.
Ferguson_2014; however, renders obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise generating an electrical representation of the netlist (par 12: “The system includes trace rules, a hardware descriptive language (HDL) tracer, an HDL to spice conversion processor, and a spice simulation processer.”; par 55: “The partial HDL netlist 145 is input to the HDL netlist to spice conversion processer 150.”; par 58: “A partial spice netlist is generated, at 304, from the partial sub-circuit netlist.”; clm 13: “an HDL to spice conversion processor configured to use the partial sub-circuit netlist and parasitics of cells used in the sub-circuit netlist to create a sub-circuit spice netlist including parasitics of cells used in the sub-circuit netlist;”; Note: Ferguson_2014 renders obvious receiving a netlist and converting that netlist into a SPICE netlist, thereby generating an electrical representation of the netlist for circuit simulation.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Sunter_2014 and Ferguson_2014 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and modeling of physical structure and evaluating the behavior of such modeled structures or electrical representations thereof. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Sunter_2014 and Ferguson_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 teaches generating and using a three-dimensional physical representation of a semiconductor specimen and extracted netlist. Ferguson_2014 teaches generating an electrical representation of the netlist by converting a netlist into a SPICE netlist. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three-dimensional physical representation and extracted netlist taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 with the generation of an electrical representation of the netlist taught by Ferguson_2014 for the benefit of providing an electrical circuit representation suitable for circuit simulation and behavioral analysis of the modeled semiconductor device.
Claim 21. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19. Sunter_2014 further renders obvious wherein the one or more functions further comprise one or more of: permutating one or more electrical parameters of the electrical representation; injecting a fault into the electrical representation; generating a virtual static test of the electrical representation to find static faults; and generating a virtual functional test of the electrical representation to find parametric faults (col 4, line 51: “if the selected circuit element is a passive circuit element that is a design-intent circuit element, the defect may be a change in parameter value of the passive circuit element by a predetermined percentage.”; line 59: “the defect is injected into the circuit netlist and then the circuit is simulated.”; col 3, line 37: “another method for analog fault simulation of a CUT includes a step of varying parameter values (for example, capacitance, resistance, or transistor threshold Voltage) of each element in the CUT and of all elements in the CUT, one parameter at a time, or using Monte Carlo selection of random values to vary multiple parameters simultaneously.”; Note: Claim 21 recites the listed functions using “one or more of” the listed functions. Therefore, the prior art needs only to render obvious at least one of the listed alternatives. When combined with the electrical representation of the netlist taught by Ferguson_2014, Sunter_2014 renders obvious permutating one or more of electrical parameters of the electrical representation and injecting a fault into the electrical representation.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 in view of Josh_2013 (US 20130060551 A1) in view of Vemulapati_2020.
Claim 20. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 does not render obvious wherein the electrical representation of the netlist is a specimen scale, technology computer-aided design, electrical representation of the netlist.
Josh_2013; however, renders obvious wherein the electrical representation of the netlist is a (clm 1: “generating a parameterized netlist corresponding to each of said sample points; running a technology computer aided design simulation for each of said parameterized netlists … to obtain … at least one metric indicative of said performance of said integrated circuit design … ”; par 38: “Such a parameterized TCAD netlist will include circuit elements, their corresponding nodes, and one or more parameters, e.g., dopant density, work function, and the like, and their corresponding values … In each simulation for each different parameterized netlist corresponding for each different statistical sample, run TCAD on the given parameterized netlist, as at step 206. The result is then the transient (or AC) waveforms of the studied samples;”; Note: Josh_2013 therefore teaches a TCAD electrical representation in which circuit elements, electrical nodes, and semiconductor-device parameters are represented in a netlist and evaluated using TCAD to determine electrical performance. When implemented on the electrical representation of the netlist taught by Ferguson_2014, Joshi_2013 renders obvious configuring that electrical representation as a technology computer-aided design electrical representation.).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Sunter_2014 and Terterian_2015 and Ferguson_2014 and Ferguson_2014 and Josh_2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and modeling of physical structure and evaluating the behavior of such modeled structures. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Ferguson_2014 and Joshi_2013. Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 teaches generating a three-dimensional physical representation of a semiconductor specimen, extracting a netlist from a physical representation, and generating a SPICE electrical representation from a netlist. Joshi_2013 teaches performing TCAD electrical simulation using parameterized netlists representing semiconductor circuit elements and their electrical characteristics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrical netlist representation taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Ferguson_2014 with the TCAD modeling and simulation technique taught by Joshi_2013 for the benefit of optimizing circuit design by evaluating electrical performance against physical fabrication tolerances.
Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Joshi_2013 does not render obvious specimen scale.
Vemulapati_2020; however, renders obvious specimen scale (page 3, par 1: “a mixed-mode TCAD model is developed to represent the full wafer device under test … The FEM cells have identical doping profile and dimensions to those fabricated but represent different regions in the wafer”).
Duffy_2014 and Kumar_2021 and Terterian_2015 and Sunter_2014 and Joshi_2013 and Ferguson_2014 and Vemulapati_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, as they all concern computer-based processing and modeling of physical structure and evaluating the behavior of such modeled structures. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Joshi_2013 in view of Ferguson_2014 and Vemulapati_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Joshi_2013 in view of Ferguson_2014 teaches generating a 3D physical representation of a semiconductor specimen, extracting a netlist from a physical representation, and generating a SPICE electrical representation from a netlist, performing TCAD electrical simulation using parameterized netlists representing semiconductor circuit elements and their electrical characteristics. Vemulapati_2020 teaches extending TCAD modeling to a full-wafer device under test. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrical representation and TCAD modeling and simulation technique taught by Duffy_2014 in view of Kumar_2021 in view of Terterian_2015 in view of Sunter_2014 in view of Joshi_2013 in view of Ferguson_2014 and the full-wafer modeling taught by Vemulapati_2020 for the benefit of comprehensive electrical performance analysis that incorporates device and manufacturing parameter variations across the specimen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANG LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am to 5pm ET.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights