DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is response to Application 18/512,792 filed on 11/17/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 17: line 2, replaces “secibd defect” with -- second defect --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,837,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions disclose a similar subjected matter.
The current claimed invention is swapping the waveform order labeled from the U.S Patent ‘308, such as the current claimed invention first waveform, second waveform, third waveform, and fourth waveform vs. ‘308: second waveform, first waveform, fourth waveform, and third waveform, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to use either one of claimed inventions as different the order label of signals/waveform to achieve similar results without undue experiments.
As per claim 1: a method of identifying defects of an integrated circuit (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, l. 9), comprising:
retrieving, from a cell of a circuit design for the integrated circuit, a first waveform from the cell responsive to applying an excitation to an input of the cell (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 11-13), the cell comprising a defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, l. 14, as a second waveform);
determining that a first comparison of the first waveform and a second waveform does not satisfy a threshold (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 19-20), the second waveform retrieved from the cell responsive to applying the excitation to the input of the cell when the cell does not include the defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 15-17 as first waveform), the first waveform and the second waveform corresponding to a first type of defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 17-18);
responsive to determining that the first comparison does not satisfy a first threshold (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 19-20):
retrieving a third waveform and a fourth waveform from the cell (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, l. 21 and ll. 24-25), the third waveform and the fourth waveform corresponding to a second type of defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 26-28), the third waveform retrieved from the cell without the defect injected (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 24-25, as fourth waveform) and the fourth waveform retrieved from the cell with the defect injected (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 21-22, as third waveform); and
responsive to a second comparison of the third waveform and the fourth waveform satisfying a second threshold, annotating a table of the cell with an indication of the second type of defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 29-32).
As per claim 2: the method of claim 1, wherein the first waveform and the second waveform each comprise respective voltage data retrieved from the cell and the third waveform and the fourth waveform each comprise respective current data retrieved from the cell (‘308, claim 2, col. 15, ll. 33-35).
As per claim 3: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
executing a first simulation of the cell to generate the first waveform (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 16-17); and
executing a second simulation of the cell to generate the second waveform (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 18-19).
As per claim 4: the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a difference between the first waveform and the second waveform to generate the first comparison (‘308, claim 4, col. 15, ll. 51-56).
As per claim 5: the method of claim 1, further comprising annotating the table of the cell with an identifier of a component of the cell corresponding to the second type of defect (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 31-32)
As per claim 6: the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a difference between the third waveform and the fourth waveform to generate the second comparison (‘308, claim 5, col. 15, ll. 57-60).
As per claim 8: the method of claim 1, wherein the cell includes one or more inputs, one or more outputs, and a plurality of circuit elements communicatively coupled to one another via one or more respective interconnects within the cell (‘308, claim 6, col. 15, ll. 64-67).
As per claim 9: the method of claim 8, further comprising modifying the cell to create a short between at least two terminals of a circuit element of the plurality of circuit elements (‘308, claim 9, col. 16, ll. 17-19).
As per claim 10: the method of claim 8, further comprising modifying the cell to create an open circuit between at least two terminals of a circuit element of the plurality of circuit elements (‘308, claim 10, col. 16, ll. 20-22).
As per claim 11: a system for identifying defects of an integrated circuit (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, l. 26), comprising:
one or more processors coupled to memory, the one or more processors configured to (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 27-28):
retrieve, from a cell of a circuit design for an integrated circuit, a first waveform from the cell responsive to applying an excitation to an input of the cell (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 33-35 as a second waveform), the cell comprising a defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, l. 32);
determine that a first comparison of the first waveform and a second waveform does not satisfy a threshold, the second waveform retrieved from the cell responsive to applying the excitation to the input of the cell when the cell does not include the defect, the first waveform and the second waveform corresponding to a first type of defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 29-31 as first waveform and ll. 36-38);
responsive to determining that the first comparison does not satisfy a first threshold (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 36-38):
retrieve a third waveform and a fourth waveform from the cell, the third waveform and the fourth waveform (first current waveform) corresponding to a second type of defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 39-41 as first current waveform), the third waveform retrieved from the cell without the defect injected and the fourth waveform (second current waveform) retrieved from the cell with the defect injected (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 39-41 as second current waveform); and
responsive to a second comparison of the third waveform and the fourth waveform satisfying a second threshold, annotate a table of the cell with an indication of the second type of defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 45-48).
As per claim 12: the system of claim 11, wherein the first waveform and the second waveform each comprise respective voltage data retrieved from the cell (‘308, claim 13, col. 16, ll. 49-51) and the third waveform and the fourth waveform each comprise respective current data retrieved from the cell (‘308, claim 14, col. 16, ll. 54-56).
As per claim 13: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
execute a first simulation of the cell to generate the first waveform (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 16-17); and
execute a second simulation of the cell to generate the second waveform (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 18-19).
As per claim 14: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a difference between the first waveform and the second waveform to generate the first comparison (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 36-38).
As per claim 15: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to annotate the table of the cell with an identifier of a component of the cell corresponding to the second type of defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 45-48).
As per claim 16: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a difference between the third waveform and the fourth waveform to generate the second comparison (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 45-47).
As per claim 18: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify the cell to create a short between at least two terminals of a circuit element of the cell or to create an open circuit between the at least two terminals (‘308, claim 16, col. 16, ll. 64-67 and claim 17, col. 17, ll. 1-4).
As per claim 19: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 9-12):
simulating a cell of a circuit design for the integrated circuit to generate a first waveform responsive to applying an excitation to an input of the cell, the cell comprising a defect (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 15-17);
simulating the cell to generate a second waveform responsive to applying the excitation to the input of the cell, the cell modified to remove the defect (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 18-19);
determining that a first comparison of the first waveform and the second waveform does not satisfy a threshold (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 20-22);
responsive to determining that the first comparison does not satisfy a first threshold (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 9-12):
retrieving a third waveform and a fourth waveform from the cell, the third waveform and the fourth waveform corresponding to a second type of defect, the third waveform (second current waveform) retrieved from the cell without the defect injected and the fourth waveform (first current waveform) retrieved from the cell with the defect injected (‘308, claim 19, col. 17, ll. 23-25 and col. 18, ll. 1-3); and
responsive to a second comparison of the third waveform and the fourth waveform satisfying a second threshold, annotating a table of the cell with an indication of the second type of defect (‘308, claim 19, col. 18, ll. 4-9).
As per claim 20: the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to annotate the table of the cell with an identifier of a component of the cell corresponding to the second type of defect (‘308, claim 12, col. 16, ll. 45-48).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,837,308 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,295,831.
‘308 teaches determining that applying a second excitation does not indicate a second defects (‘308, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 22-23).
‘308 does not teaches update the table of the cell with a second indication corresponding to the second excitation.
‘831 teaches first annotation (‘831, claim 1, col 15, ll. 23-25) and second annotation (‘831, claim 1, col. 15, ll. 35-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to using a second annotation to update the table corresponding to result of the comparison in claim 1 of ‘308.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,295,831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions disclose a similar subjected matter.
The current claimed invention having a broader scope than ‘831 (as parent case), however, there are different claim limitations arrangement in independent claims as well as dependent claims, but the claimed invention can not be distinct from each other (see ‘831, claims 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to use either one of claimed inventions will achieve a similar result without undue experiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 11, and 19: recited “retrieving a third waveform and a fourth waveform from the cell, the third waveform and the fourth waveform corresponding to a second type of defect, the third waveform retrieved from the cell without the defect injected and the fourth waveform retrieved from the cell with the defect injected; and responsive to a second comparison of the third waveform and the fourth waveform satisfying a second threshold, annotating a table of the cell with an indication of the second type of defect” which is unclear whether “third waveform” and “second waveform” are retrieved the inputs or the output of the cell?
As per claim 19: recited “a second type of defect” which is unclear the previous steps/limitations including “a first type of defects” and also unclear the phrase “the defect” in the claim referred to “a second type of defect” or “other defect type”.
As per claims 7 and 17: recited “determining that applying a second excitation” which is unclear what is signal/waveform to be applied a second excitation? Where is/are to be applied to?
Claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 are also rejected because are depended directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851