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 .
OFFICE ACTION
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 9 and 18 are rejected because:(a) the Applicants are claiming a trademark OASIS without permission and/or certification and/or authorization documentations, and
(b) The first occurrence of acronym OASIS in a claim group must be spelled out
Regarding trademark claims 9 and 18 contain the trademark/trade name OASISTM, where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe OASIS, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Chapman (US 2009/0307640)
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses:
A method for translation of an IC design data into a production file (design for manufacturing / production/ foundry /fabrication (abstract, summary, par 45, fig 1-3)), the method comprising:
identifying a top cell in the IC design data and a first cell-file associated with the top cell (top level cell, top level file, cell top/hierarchy/file in one or more of par 38-39, 110, 120, 139, 169, 175, 244, 387, 806, 812, 830, 833, 858, 916);
assigning the first cell-file to a first translation module of a plurality of translation modules (cell format/file changing/ re-ordering/ synthesis/ transformation/ translation (par 33, 44, 118, 121, 136-137, 173, 244, 741, 916));
receiving, from the first translation module, an identification of one or more child cells (leaf cells, lower level cells (par 38, 118, 147, 149, 175, 398, 405, 610, 742, 850)) referenced by the first cell-file;
assigning cell-files of the IC design data that correspond to each of the one or more child cells (leaf cells, lower level cells (par 38, 118, 147, 149, 175, 398, 405, 610, 742, 850)) to different translation modules of the plurality of translation modules (cell format/file changing/ re-ordering/ synthesis/ covert / transformation/ translation (par 33, 44, 118, 121, 136-137, 173, 244, 741, 916));
receiving, by a merger module (linking together multiple related files to represent a cell (par 129), libraries which together form a larger library (par 141), cells or modules, individual design units which are combined to form a design (par 151), library of cell design templates 131 that are combined (par 184).
Also see merge/ link/ combine cell/file/format/library (par 204, 214, 226, 229, 244, 254, 414, 557, 702, 705-709, 840, 862, 871, 875, 913, 924)), a single-cell production file (see single cell/file/format/database/library for production in one or more of par 39-40, 44, 170, 178, 252, 785, 854) from each of the plurality of translation modules, wherein each single-cell production file corresponds to a cell in the IC design data; and
combining, by the merger module (linking together multiple related files to represent a cell (par 129), libraries which together form a larger library (par 141), cells or modules, individual design units which are combined to form a design (par 151), library of cell design templates 131 that are combined (par 184).
Also see merge/ link/ combine cell/file/format/library (par 204, 214, 226, 229, 244, 254, 414, 557, 702, 705-709, 840, 862, 871, 875, 913, 924)), the single-cell production files to create the production file (see single cell/file/format/database/library for production in one or more of par 39-40, 44, 170, 178, 252, 785, 854) .
(Claim 2) wherein each cell-file of the IC design data include a unique name (see one or more of par 6, 44, 71-76, 117, 151, 159, 161, 194, 197, 212, 222-225, 240-243, 352-353, 371, 421-424, fig 11-12).
(Claim 3) wherein each of the plurality of translation modules is configured to create a single-cell file that includes an index value (see reports/tables in one or more of pages 5-6, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22-26, 28, 30-38) based on the unique name.
(Claim 4) wherein the index value is created by performing cyclic redundancy check (par 199, 556, 559, 566, 840-850) on the unique name
(Claim 5) wherein combining the single-cell production files includes performing a conflict check (see one or more of design rule check/ violations, name conflict, duplicate cell names in format, match/un-match cells, in one or more of par 6, 39, 119-122, 127, 427, 436, 457, 465, 470-471, 760, 785, 794, 803, 811, 832-834) between index values of each of the single-cell production files.
(Claim 6) wherein one or more of the plurality of translation modules are configured to be executed in parallel (executed in parallel in terms of one or more of, i.e., change in file data at same time, parallel synthesis, differencing tools would be to use the canonical digests to identify cells that differ, allows matching of numbers written by different tools, differencing tool could be used to compare new and old libraries (par 115, 185, 126, 427, 856))
(Claim 7) appending an index table that includes an index value, a file name, and a location offset for each single-cell production file data within the production file (see reports/tables in one or more of pages 5-6, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22-26, 28, 30-38)
(Claim 9) wherein the production file is an OASIS file (see one or more of fig 11, par 35, 55))
Claims 10-16 and 18-20 recite similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason.
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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chapman (US 2009/0307640) in view of Bhattacharya (US 2011/0173582) or Shahin (US 2025/0028895)
Chapman discloses substantially all the elements in the claims except OpenAccess file in claims 8, 17; however, OpenAccess file is disclosed by the Bhattacharya or Shahin.
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 utilize OpenAccess file simply because one or more of the following reasons
Bhattacharya (par 53): OpenAccess format allows a user to incorporate design tools and data from multiple sources. The OpenAccess format provides a standard model for describing data to be exchanged between the various electronic design tools and an interface for invoking software modules across various electronic design automation tools.
Shahin (par 38): Open Artwork System Interchange Standard (OASIS) proposed by Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI). These various industry formats are used to define the geometrical information in IC layout designs that are employed to manufacture integrated circuits.
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