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 .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input module”, “a testing module” and “an output module” in claims 11-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of determining a minimum operating voltage for an IC chip.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A minimum integrated circuit (IC) operating voltage searching method comprising:
acquiring a corner type of an IC;
acquiring ring oscillator data of the IC;
generating a first prediction voltage according to the corner type and the ring oscillator data by using a training model;
generating a second prediction voltage according to the ring oscillator data by using a non-linear regression (NLR) approach under an N-ordered polynomial, wherein N is a positive integer; and
generating a predicted minimum IC operating voltage according to the first prediction voltage and the second prediction voltage.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations (c) and (d) encompasses mathematical concepts and/or relationships, which also encompasses mental processes (i.e., data manipulation, analysis, evaluation and/or judgement) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
In light of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Examples 47-49), a computing scheme (e.g., prediction) using a machine learning/training model is considered an "abstract idea" if the claim focuses solely on the concept of performing the computing using a generic machine learning algorithm without any specific technical improvements or applications that go beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions, essentially, if the claim is too high-level and does not describe a concrete, inventive implementation of the machine learning process. In the instant case, the limitation (c) simply applies a machine learning/training model to the acquired data and generates the output. The “training model” is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not provide details of how the “training model” is coupled to the IC and configured to generate the first prediction voltage based on the existing data of the corner type and the ring oscillator. Rather, the limitation (c) only recites the outcome of the “computing scheme” which is used like a “black box AI” whose internal workings are a mystery of math concepts to its users. Similarly, the limitation (d) recites the non-linear regression (NLR) approach at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the claimed NLR is used merely like a math tool to generate the second prediction voltage. Such a math tool can be implemented with the aid of pan/paper or any general-purpose computer based on mathematical concepts, but does not necessarily need to be a particular device or machine that is integral to the claim.
Under its BRI, the limitation (e) encompasses mathematical concepts and/or relationships (see Spec. para. [0018]), which also encompasses mental processes (i.e., data manipulation, analysis, evaluation and/or judgement) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind or by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under the BRI, each of the additional limitations (a) and (b) encompasses merely an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea.
The steps of “acquiring a corner type of an IC” and “acquiring ring oscillator data of the IC” are recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify any particular sensor or device used in certain particular manner for acquiring the corner type and/or the ring oscillator data. It could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data in real-time. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The characterization of the acquired data is merely descriptive of the information being used for generating the first and the second prediction voltage. At most, it generally links the identified judicial exception to a particular field of use.
None of these additional elements is considered to be qualified for “significantly more” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a minimum operating voltage for an IC chip by blending the outputs from a machine learning model and a non-linear regression model.
The claim recites routine data gathering of a corner type and ring oscillator data of the IC. On-chip data such as ring oscillator frequencies and silicon odometer readings that represent process corner variations, etc. are all considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. The claim does not recite any additional element that is qualified for “significantly more”. As such, none of the additional limitations in claim 1 is “significantly more” or reflects an “inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim is therefore ineligible under the 2019 PEG
The dependent claims 2-10 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 2 recites: establishing the training model by using a neural network regression (NNR) architecture. According to the Spec. (e.g., para. [0011]), said “neural network regression (NNR) architecture” is actually used as the design architecture of the AI model itself. Neither the claim nor the Spec. describes any particular training algorithm and/or “bigdata” through which said “training model” is trained. Further, there is no disclosure that the claimed training model would lead to an improvement in machine learning technology, while a generic architecture of neural network regression model (including an input layer, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer), which is commonly used to predict continuous values, is well-known in the art. As such, claim 2 recites merely mental steps of generic data processing using math concepts which are treated as a part of the identified the judicial exception.
Under the BRI, the additional limitations recited in claims 9 and 10 read on extra-solution activities that encompass merely instructions to apply the identified judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment. They do not impose any meaningful limits to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, activities such as testing the IC by using a plurality of predetermined minimum IC operating voltages for searching a real minimum IC operating voltage is "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. It does not involve any “inventive concept” (see the prior art cited in section 6 below).
Claim 11 recites the additional elements including: an input module configured to receive input data; a memory; a testing module configured to test an IC by using a plurality of minimum IC operating voltages; a processor coupled to the input module, the memory, and the testing module; and an output module coupled to the testing module and configured to output a real minimum IC operating voltage. Under the BRI, the combination of the input module, the memory, the processor and the output module encompasses a general-purpose computer (See Spec. para. [0011]). The testing module is recited at a high level of generality. It is unclear how the testing module is structured and configured to communicate with the processor and the output module to perform the testing. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 12-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 2-10.
Hence instant claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
6. While there are related references that discuss techniques of searching a minimum operating voltage for an IC chip, the prior art of record do not specifically provide teachings for a hybrid approach that blends neural networks with non-linear regression models comprising: generating a first prediction voltage according to the corner type and the ring oscillator data by using a training model; generating a second prediction voltage according to the ring oscillator data by using a non-linear regression (NLR) approach under an N-ordered polynomial, wherein N is a positive integer; and generating a predicted minimum IC operating voltage according to the first prediction voltage and the second prediction voltage. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 1-20, as they are recited in independent claim 1 and 11, that would make these claims distinguish over the prior art.
The closest reference Lee et al. (“Minimum Voltage Prediction Model for Application Processor Based on Deep Neural Network in Manufacturing Process”, Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Sciences (EECSS’19) Lisbon, Portugal – August, 2019) discloses a minimum voltage prediction model based on Deep Neural Network (DNN) to search the optimal/lowest voltage for individual Aps (Abstract). Lee further teaches assessing the DNN-based prediction model against other prediction models that are established based on data regression architectures (sections 3.1 and 3.2) by considering the complex nonlinearity relationship between the characteristic parameter and minimum voltage of each model (section 2.2). However, Lee fails to teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
Kuo et al. (“Minimum Operating Voltage Prediction in Production Test Using Accumulative Learning”, 2021 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC)) discloses a technique of predicting a minimum operating voltage in production test using accumulative learning. However, Kuo does not teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
PADMANABHAN et al. (US 20230409790 A1) discloses machine learning (NL) techniques for IC design and debugging, comprising training a ML model based on data signal values of the IC generated by simulations of the IC wherein the simulated signal values are associated with internal signals identified based on a non-linear regression model (para. 0044). However, Kuo does not teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights