DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Application No. 18/624,831, filed on 2 April 2024. 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 an integrated circuit (IC) layout, assigning a connection between at least two elements, assigning property values to the elements, and performing a calculation, which is a mental process that could be performed by a circuit designer in the mind or with pen and paper. A designer looking at (or thinking about) a layout, assigning a connection (mentally, manually, pen and paper, etc.) between two elements, assigning a property (again, mentally, manually, etc.) to the elements, and performing a calculation based on the assignments satisfies the claim.
Claim 2 further specifies that the calculation is of a net area ratio, which is simple ratio between geometric values; claim 3 recites outputting the calculation result, which is insignificant post-solution activity; claim 4 specifies that the elements are represented by polygons, which is a characteristic of the layout that does not change the abstract nature of the method; claims 5-8 recite storing the property and receiving user commands, which at most are merely generic computer implementation features, and at worst could still be interpreted as being aspects of manual/mental designer behavior; claim 8 recites performing the calculation for at least two sets of elements, which does not change the abstract nature of the method. Claims 9-20 are analogous to 1-8.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims either recite no elements beyond the abstract idea itself (claims 1, 2, 4, and 8, arguably 5-7), or recite either generic computer implementation (claims 5-7, and 9-20) or insignificant post-solution activity (claims 3, 11, and 18), which do not qualify as patentable integrations into practical applications. 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 insignificant post-solution activity do not qualify as ‘significantly more’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hook (US 2017/0270233).
Regarding claim 1, Hook discloses a method performed by a computer system (¶43) and comprising: receiving an integrated circuit (IC) layout design including a plurality of circuit elements (¶¶29, 44); assigning a connection in a same IC net between at least two circuit elements of the plurality of circuit elements (¶¶29, 46); assigning a property value to each of the at least two circuit elements based on the assigned connection (¶32); and performing a calculation on the IC layout design according to the assigned connection and the assigned property values (¶34).
Regarding claim 2, Hook discloses that the calculation is a net area ratio calculation (¶34).
Regarding claim 8, Hook discloses that the calculation is performed between two or more sets of connected circuit elements (Fig. 2; ¶¶29-30).
Claims 9, 10, and 16 are directed to computer systems comprising at least one processor and an accessible memory for performing the methods of claims 1, 2, and 8, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Hook discloses computer systems comprising at least one processor and an accessible memory for performing the claimed methods (¶35).
Claims 17 and 20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media for performing the methods of claims 1 and 8, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Hook discloses non-transitory computer-readable media for performing the claimed methods (¶35).
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) 3, 6, 11, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of KLayout (“DRC Reference: Netter object”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Hook does not appear to explicitly disclose outputting the result of the calculation, but does disclose either fabricating or modifying the layout based on the result of the calculation, which strongly implies outputting the calculation result (e.g. to OK the layout for fabrication or to trigger/guide modifications); furthermore, outputting calculated results is notoriously well-known. KLayout discloses outputting the result of the calculation (p. 3, above “clear_connections”, errors shapes generated by antenna check and text layer receiving error labels describing measured values and computation parameters for debugging the layout). 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 Hook and KLayout, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of conveying results so that appropriate actions can be taken. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Hook discloses performing calculations and either fabricating the layout or modifying the layout based on the calculation results, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand strongly implies outputting the calculation results. KLayout provides explicit disclosure of outputting the results. The teachings of KLayout are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would output calculation results so that appropriate actions, such as layout debugging/modification, can be taken.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Hook discloses that the connection is assigned based on receiving a command from a user to assign the connection (¶46). If Hook is found to be unclear regarding these limitations; KLayout discloses the same (p. 3, “connect”). 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 Hook and KLayout, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of allowing users to control analysis operations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Hook discloses a computer-implemented method for analyzing layout elements. KLayout teaches that steps of the analysis are performed in response to user commands. The teachings of KLayout are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would similarly perform the analysis based on user commands, to allow users to control analysis operations.
Regarding claim 18, Hook discloses that the calculation is a net area ratio calculation (¶34), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more computer systems to output the result of the calculation, but does disclose either fabricating or modifying the layout based on the result of the calculation, which strongly implies outputting the calculation result (e.g. to OK the layout for fabrication or to trigger/guide modifications); furthermore, outputting calculated results is notoriously well-known. KLayout discloses that the executable instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more computer systems to output the result of the calculation (p. 3, above “clear_connections”, errors shapes generated by antenna check and text layer receiving error labels describing measured values and computation parameters for debugging the layout). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Pikus (US 2008/0115097).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Hook discloses that the plurality of circuit elements are represented by polygons (¶24; GDSII defines layout elements by polygon vertices). If Hook is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Pikus also discloses that the plurality of circuit elements are represented by polygons (Fig. 4). 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 Hook and Pikus, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of defining layout elements according to industry standards. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Hook discloses layouts, particularly GDSII layouts, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being polygonal. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would further know that circuit layout elements are conventionally polygons, as shown by Pikus. Polygon layout elements are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would similarly represent its layout shapes in industry-standard forms for compliance.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Hook discloses that each property value is stored as a property of the circuit element to which the property value is assigned (¶30). If Hook is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Pikus also discloses the same (¶¶69-70). 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 Hook and Pikus, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of annotating layouts with useful information. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Hook discloses layouts comprising elements for which properties such as device area are calculated. Pikus provides additional explicit disclosure that such properties are stored in the layout in association with the elements. The teachings of Pikus are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would similarly store properties in association with layout elements to annotate layouts with useful information.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Hook does not appear to explicitly disclose that the property or the property value is assigned based on receiving a command from a user to assign the property or the property value. Pikus discloses these limitations (¶¶71, 73, 86). 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 Hook and Pikus, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of allowing users to specify layout element properties to analyze. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Hook discloses calculating properties for layout elements. Pikus teaches that such property calculations are performed based on user commands. The teachings of Pikus are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would similarly calculate properties based on user commands, to allow users to specify the layout element properties for analysis.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of KLayout and Pikus.
Regarding claim 19, Hook discloses that the connection is assigned based on receiving a command from a user to assign the connection (¶46). If Hook is found to be unclear regarding these limitations; KLayout discloses the same (p. 3, “connect”). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 6.
Hook does not appear to explicitly disclose that the property or the property value is assigned based on receiving a command from a user to assign the property or the property value. Pikus discloses these limitations (¶¶71, 73, 86). 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 Hook, KLayout, and Pikus, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of allowing users to specify layout element properties to analyze. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Hook discloses calculating properties for layout elements. Pikus teaches that such property calculations are performed based on user commands. The teachings of Pikus are directly applicable to Hook in the same way, so that Hook would similarly calculate properties based on user commands, to allow users to specify the layout element properties for analysis.
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.
25 September 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights