DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Application No.18/448,348, filed on 11 August 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving PCB information (outline and netlist), applying a clustering algorithm, applying a grid-based local cluster placement algorithm, applying a global cluster placement algorithm, and generating a fully optimized placed design, which could be performed by a PCB designer in the mind or with pen and paper. A designer viewing or thinking about the PCB outline and components, thinking about which components should be grouped or otherwise related, thinking about or drawing how grouped components should be arranged, thinking about or drawing how groups should be arranged, and then thinking about or drawing the PCB layout literally satisfies the claimed process.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are directed to feedback for various steps of the process, which could be performed by designers simply looking at results after a given step and then further refining the grouping or arrangement at that step. Claims 5 and 7 recite specific types of well-known mathematical algorithms such as spectral clustering or conjugate gradient descent, which are themselves abstract ideas. Claim 8 recites the step of identifying a component having the largest number of pins, which could be performed by a designer reviewing the components and their pins. Claim 9 recites a visualization at a graphical user interface, which is merely generic computer implementation and insignificant post-solution activity of outputting a result. Claim 10 recites that the design is on a same layer, which is merely a characteristic of the design and does not change the abstract nature of the method. Claims 11-20 are directed to computer-readable media for performing the methods of claims 1-10.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only limitations the claims recite outside of the judicial exception itself are generic computer implementation and post-solution activity, which do not qualify as integration into a patentable practical application. Similarly, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic computer implementation and post-solution activity do not qualify as ‘significantly more’.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter (US 2013/0198708) in view of Basaran (US 2017/0344689).
Regarding claim 1, Suiter discloses a computer-implemented (Fig. 1) automated printed circuit board (PCB) component placement method (¶¶3, 4) comprising: receiving a PCB outline and a netlist having PCB component details (Fig. 2A; ¶3); applying a clustering algorithm to generate one or more clustered groups (¶35); applying a grid-based local cluster placement algorithm to the one or more clustered groups (¶36); applying a global cluster placement algorithm (Fig. 2D; ¶38); and generating a fully optimized placed design (¶¶4, 34).
If Suiter is found to be unclear regarding the netlist or the grid-based local cluster placement algorithm, Basaran discloses the same (¶¶25, 71). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter and Basaran, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of aligned placement based on component information and connectivity. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Suiter discloses placing PCB components in groups. Basaran teaches that component information is provided in the form a netlist, and that components are placed in groups using a grid-based placement algorithm. The teachings of Basaran are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would use component information provided in a netlist to perform the component group placement using a grid-based placement algorithm to achieve aligned component placement.
Regarding claim 3, Suiter discloses providing a second current placement from a global cluster placement algorithm as feedback to the global cluster placement algorithm (Fig. 6E).
Regarding claim 10, Suiter discloses that the fully optimized placed design is placed and routed on a same layer (Fig. 6E; ¶¶4, 34).
Claims 11, 13, and 20 are directed to computer-readable media have instructions for performing the methods of claims 1, 3, and 10, respectively, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Suiter further discloses computer-readable media have instructions for performing the claimed methods (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter in view of Basaran and Henrickson (US 9,390,211).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose providing a first current placement from a clustering algorithm as feedback to the clustering algorithm; Henrickson discloses these limitations (col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 12; col. 6, lines 41-52). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter, Basaran, and Henrickson, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving placement solutions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Suiter discloses clustering. Henrickson teaches that clustering solutions are used as feedback for the clustering algorithm. The teachings of Henrickson are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would similarly use clustering solutions as feedback for the clustering algorithm to iteratively improve the clustering solutions.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose providing feedback to optimize placement for wire length and routability; Henrickson discloses these limitations (col. 6, lines 34-40). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter in view of Basaran and Scepanovic (US 5,661,663).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose providing a third current placement from a grid based local cluster placement algorithm as feedback to the grid based local cluster placement algorithm. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Basaran discloses the grid-based local cluster placement algorithm (¶71). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1. Scepanovic further discloses providing a third current placement from the local cluster placement algorithm as feedback to the local cluster placement algorithm (Fig 3, steps 61-64; col. 1, lines 52-55; col. 9, lines 40-46). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter, Basaran, and Scepanovic, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving placement solutions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Suiter discloses clustering and local placement, and Basaran teaches specifically grid-based local placement. Scepanovic teaches that local placement solutions are used as feedback for the local placement algorithm. The teachings of Scepanovic are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would similarly use local placement solutions as feedback for the local placement algorithm to iteratively improve the placement solutions.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose providing feedback to optimize placement for wire length and routability; Scepanovic discloses these limitations (col. 1, lines 52-55). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter in view of Basaran and Bose (US 2009/0254874).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the global cluster placement algorithm includes conjugate gradient descent optimization; Bose discloses these limitations (¶305). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter, Basaran, and Bose, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing placement through conventional methods. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Suiter discloses global placement, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize can be performed using known placement algorithms. Bose teaches optimizing global placement through conventional methods such as conjugate gradient descent. The teachings of Bose are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would similarly optimize global placement through conventional algorithms such as conjugate gradient descent.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Suiter discloses generating a visualization at a graphical user interface including global placement results (Figs. 2D and 6E; ¶40).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter in view of Basaran and Ju (CN 115081381).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the clustering algorithm includes spectral clustering approaches; Ju discloses these limitations (¶22). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter, Basaran, and Ju, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, to produce merely the predictable results of optimizing clustering through conventional methods. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Suiter discloses clustering, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize can be performed using known clustering algorithms. Ju teaches optimizing clustering through conventional methods such as spectral clustering. The teachings of Ju are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would similarly optimize clustering through conventional algorithms such as spectral clustering.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suiter in view of Basaran and Peyran (US 2005/0081173).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Suiter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the grid based local cluster placement algorithm includes identifying a component having a largest number of pins. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Basaran discloses the grid-based local cluster placement algorithm (¶71). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1. Peyran discloses that the local cluster placement algorithm includes identifying a component having a largest number of pins (¶56). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Suiter, Basaran, and Peyran, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of ordering components for local placement to improve placement results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Suiter discloses clustering and local placement, and Basaran teaches specifically grid-based local placement. Peyran teaches that local placement should be performed based on the components having the largest number of pins. The teachings of Peyran are directly applicable to Suiter in the same way, so that Suiter would similarly order local placement based on the number of pins of the components to improvement placement results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
26 June 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights