200Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
OFFICE ACTION
This is a response to the election filed on 6/25/2026.
The Examiner acknowledges:
The Applicant elected group I, claims 1-9 without traverse.
The non-elected claims 10-20 have been amended to depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
The Applicant requests rejoinder of the non-elected claims 10-20 is approved based on the amended.
Thus, claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Horng (US 2006/0143589)
Regarding claim 1 the prior art disclosed:
A method of generating an IC design (par 1, 27, 43), the method comprising:
generating a contextual cell including a super-master (Celldef in fig 1-2, 7, 14, 16-17, celldef data structure in a textual/contextual form) and defining at least one sub-master (subcell in fig 1, 3-, 7, 14, 16-17) , the at least one sub-master derived from parameterized values and a context of an instance of the super-master (one or more of fig 1-4, 7-8, 14-17 and related text discloses subcell derived/ defined/ contained/ recurred/ carried/ referenced from parameters and instances from Celldef) .
(Claim 2) generating the at least one sub-master based at least in part on components of cells proximate (shape in close proximity, adjacent objects,
proximity unit cells in regions adjacent to each of the instances, adjacent regions/ neighborhood , proximity neighborhood, neighboring shape (par 14, 33, 37-38, 89, 131, 135) ) the contextual cell.
(Claim 3) identifying the components including other instances and shapes based on a location of the instance (see par 23, 30-39 134-145).
(Claim 4) accessing an internal structure (detailed internal composition, structure reference, cell data structure, comprise structure references, cell definition data structure, features lying within the ROI ring, Cellinst structures
(abstract, par 8, 20, 52, 66-67, 73-77, 91-96, 127-128)) of the contextual cell and at least one proximate cell.
(Claim 5) identifying features of the internal structure of the contextual cell and of one or more proximate cells to generate the at least one sub-master derived from a set of identified features and prescribed rule-sets (fig 1, 6-8, 12, 18. Rule-sets are one or more of DRC, ensure the intended target design pattern fidelity is met, meet a certain performance target (abstract/summary, par 18, 138))
(Claim 6) features from one or more proximate cells (par 14, 33, 37-38, 89, 131, 135) are used in creation of the at least one sub-master.
Claim 8 recite similar subject matter and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
(Claim 14) obtaining a cell of a cell type (fig 1, 3-4. 6-17); generating one or more netlists (par 1) representative of the cell type;
Simulating (par 19, 88), based on the one or more netlists, operations of a circuit of the cell; and generating a textual description of the circuit based on the simulated operations (par 19, 88) of the circuit.
(Claim 15) wherein generating the textual description comprises generating an image representative (see one or more of fig 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 17 and or par 11-14, 18-19) of the circuit.
(Claim 16) wherein the simulating comprises simulating operations of the circuit across one or more of size variations of the cell or process variations of the cell (see one or more of par 14-23, 135-145)
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Tuan (US 2014/0380259)
Regarding claim 1 and similarly recited claim 8, the prior art disclosed:
A method of generating an IC design (par 4-6), the method comprising:
generating a contextual cell including a super-master (cell mater, parent/root/master/ top-level cell/instance in one or more of par 17, 20-27, 60-62, 65-66, 71-73, 77-80) and defining at least one sub-master (children cell/instance, sub-cell/instance in one or more of par 17, 20-27, 60-62, 65-66, 71-73, 77-80), the at least one sub-master derived from parameterized values and a context of an instance of the super-master (see one or more of par 17, 20-27, 60-62, 65-66, 71-73, 77-80)
(Claim 2) generating the at least one sub-master based at least in part on components of cells proximate (par 10, 71, fig 2, 5-8) the contextual cell.
(Claim 3) identifying the components including other instances and shapes based on a location of the instance (summary or fig 3-7 and related text).
(Claim 4) accessing an internal structure of the contextual cell and at least one proximate cell (fig 3-7 and related text).
(Claim 5) identifying features of the internal structure of the contextual cell and of one or more proximate cells to generate the at least one sub-master derived from a set of identified features and prescribed rule-sets (fig 3-7 and related text. For prescribed rule-sets, see one or more of abstract, background, summary or par 70-73)
(Claim 6) features from one or more proximate cells are used in creation of the at least one sub-master (fig 3-7 and related text).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Seidl (US 2007/0011637)
Regarding claim 1 and similarly recited claim 8, the prior art disclosed:
A method of generating an IC design (title), the method comprising:
generating a contextual cell including a super-master (base cell, basecell-id, parent cell/instance, base cell/shape/instance, baseinst-id in one or more of par 8, 40-44, 51, 56, 65-67, 82-84, 89, 101, 105, 107, 109) and defining at least one sub-master (sub cell/shape/instance, child cell/shape/instance in one or more of par 8, 10, 40-44, 56, 65-67, 82-84, 89, 101, 105, 107, 109)), the at least one sub-master derived from parameterized values and a context of an instance of the super-master (subcell is then also referred to as parent cell to the subcell, baseInstId of each base cell (representing a child cell),interaction between cell B and cell A, cell B (being the child cell) is the base cell because it carries the base shape and cell A (being the parent cell),base shape is contained in cell C and cell C is a subcell, parent instances are (recursively) output in the common "child" instance, cell instance from child cell instances to parent cell instances (par 8, 65, 82-83, 105, 109),
(Claim 2) generating the at least one sub-master based at least in part on components of cells proximate the contextual cell (fig 2-9)
(Claim 3) identifying the components including other instances and shapes based on a location of the instance (fig 2-9)
(Claim 4) accessing an internal structure of the contextual cell and at least one proximate cell (background or fig 1-9 and related text)
(Claim 5) identifying features of the internal structure of the contextual cell and of one or more proximate cells to generate the at least one sub-master derived from a set of identified features and prescribed rule-sets (fig 12-16, prescribed rule-sets in back ground, summary).
(Claim 6) features from one or more proximate cells are used in creation of the at least one sub-master (fig 1-16 and related)
Claims 1-6, 8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Wang (US 2021/0374320)
Regarding claim 1 and similarly recited claim 8, the prior art disclosed:
A method of generating an IC design (title), the method comprising:
generating a contextual cell including a super-master (parent cell (abstract, summary or fig 1-6) ) and defining at least one sub-master (child cell (abstract, summary or fig 1-6) ), the at least one sub-master derived from parameterized values and a context of an instance of the super-master (fig 1-6 and related text).
(Claim 2) generating the at least one sub-master based at least in part on components of cells proximate the contextual cell (fig 2-8).
(Claim 3) identifying the components including other instances and shapes based on a location of the instance (fig 1-8 and related text).
(Claim 4) accessing an internal structure of the contextual cell and at least one proximate cell (fig 2-8 and related text)
(Claim 5) identifying features of the internal structure of the contextual cell and of one or more proximate cells to generate the at least one sub-master derived from a set of identified features and prescribed rule-set (fig 2-8 and related text, prescribed rule-set disclosed in one or more of abstract, background, summary, par 36-39, 49-53, 59-61)
(Claim 6) features from one or more proximate cells are used in creation of the at least one sub-master (fig 1-8 and related text).
(Claim 14) obtaining a cell of a cell type; generating one or more netlists (par 58-59) representative of the cell type;
Simulating (par 57-60), based on the one or more netlists, operations of a circuit of the cell; and generating a textual description of the circuit based on the simulated operations of the circuit
(Claim 15) wherein generating the textual description comprises generating an image representative of the circuit (fig 2, 4, 6, 8)
(Claim 16) wherein the simulating comprises simulating operations of the circuit across one or more of size variations of the cell or process variations of the cell (fig 1-8 and related text)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over one or more of above mentioned main references in the 35 USC 102 rejections in view of secondary references Watkins (US 2018/0076797) or De Oliveira (US 2016/0314057)
The main references disclose substantially all the elements in the claims except the feature radiation hardening including performing Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) for digital logic cells, inserting guard ring cells on analog cell blocks, or both, in claims 7, 9; however, this feature is disclosed by the secondary references above mentioned:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (in the instant application) to apply features in claims 7, 9 simply because one or more of the following reasons:
Watkins, par 23: The simplest and most common design in safety critical applications is the triple modular redundancy (TMR) in the field of hardening latches against single event upsets (SEUs)/radiation error.
De Oliveira (US 2016/0314057) , par 3: radiation sensitivity technical problem is mitigated with solutions based on Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) architectures or/and specific “rad-hard” (i.e. radiations hardened) digital integrated circuits. TMR architectures are well known fault tolerant techniques applicable to digital integrated circuits design up to system level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-13 and 17-20 would be allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations in claim 10 and claim 17.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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.
/PAUL DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights