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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a computer program product, but appears to be comprised of software alone without claiming associated computer hardware required for execution. Claim 8 has been amended to recite, “a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium …” However, in spite of the amendment, the claim still pertains to and is limited to the computer program product, which may be software alone; the phrasing about storing the program product on a non-transitory medium is part of the preamble and may be regarded as an expression of intended use. Thus claim 8 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.01.
To overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner recommends amending claim 8 to directly pertain to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium i.e., “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program product …” Various formulations are possible.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claims
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassan (US 2021/0133293).
Regarding claim 1, Hassan teaches a method comprising:
identifying, within an integrated circuit (IC) layout, a curved feature including a first endline and a second endline each having at least a threshold length and a curvilinear interval
connecting the first endline to the second endline (Figs. 2-4, Abstract, [0021-0030, 0017], the system receives a design layout, including a curvilinear feature; as seen in Fig. 3, the system may determine vertices along the feature; as noted in [0022], the system may require a specific spacing between vertices; as seen in Fig. 3, the vertices may define straight line portions e.g., the portions towards the left of Fig. 3, which are in turn connected by a curved portion);
calculating a feature angle and a radius of the curvilinear interval between the first endline and the second endline (Figs. 3-4, [0021-0030], as seen in Fig. 4, a line segment/chord connects a pair of adjacent vertices; an angle and a radius are determined for that line segment, which is part of the larger curve);
determining, based on the feature angle and the radius, whether the curvilinear interval is divisible into a plurality of linear segments each having a same length and a same orientation differential relative to the first endline and the second endline (Figs. 3-4, [0021-0030], the system analyzes characteristics of each segment/chord of the curve; the system determines whether each of the segments satisfies certain criteria i.e., has a radius of curvature less than a threshold; the determination is based on the determined angle and chord length, as noted in [0027-0028]; put another way, the system determines whether the curve is associated with segments that are collectively oriented in a particular way relative to the connecting end lines, such that the orientation of each segment satisfies the above criteria; the described technique involves measuring the length of each segment/chord; inherently, this means that there is a determination as to whether the segment/chords have different or equal lengths; also, Hasan [002] contemplates that the length of the chords may be the same predetermined distance i.e., 0.7 * minCD; Fig. 4, [0023-0025], Fig. 4 also illustrates another perspective on the Hassan system; for example, Fig. 4 illustrates multiple edge segments 310A, 310B which make up a curve i.e., plurality of linear segments; those segments must be oriented similarly relative to their respective vertices/connecting lines, such that there is no DRC violation);
manufacturing an IC from the layout based on the curvilinear interval and the plurality of linear segments in response to curvilinear interval being divisible into the plurality of linear segments ([0029-0031], the system iteratively checks to see if the above criteria violated, and if so alters the layout and runs the checks again; once no violations are found, fabrication is performed based on the layout).
Regarding claim 2, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Hassan also teaches modifying the IC layout in response to determining the curvilinear interval is not divisible into the plurality of linear segments ([0029-0031], the system iteratively checks to see if the above criteria violated, and if so alters the layout and runs the checks again; once no violations are found, fabrication is performed based on the layout).
Regarding claim 3, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. Hassan also teaches repeating the calculating and the determining following modifying the IC layout ([0029-0031], the system iteratively checks to see if the above criteria violated, and if so alters the layout and runs the checks again; once no violations are found, fabrication is performed based on the layout).
Regarding claim 4, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Hassan also teaches wherein the determining further includes determining whether each of the plurality of linear segments has a length less than the threshold length ([0022], the system ensures that the spacing between vertices meets a threshold; [0027-0028], also, the system ascertains whether the chord, which connects two adjacent vertices, is low such that a DRC violation is determined).
Regarding claim 7, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Hassan also teaches converting the curvilinear interval into a linear model by calculating a feature angle based on a selected pair of the plurality of linear segments, the selected pair having a same orientation differential relative to the first endline or the second endline, wherein the manufacturing is further based on the linear model (Hasan Figs. 3, 4 [0020-0028], as seen in the figures, the curvilinear feature is translated into multiple lines e.g., chords and edge segments i.e., tangential lines 310A and 310B in Fig. 4. The technique in Hasan involves calculating the angle formed by a pair of edge segments; many such pairs can be derived from a curvilinear feature; Hassan applies the same orientation criteria to the edge segments associated with the vertices defined in the curvilinear feature i.e., the edge segment pairs and the associated angles and radii of curvature derived from the curvilinear feature must each satisfy the same orientation criteria to not cause a design rule violation; as noted in [0030], the design with the curvilinear feature may be manufactured if no design violations occur.)
Regarding claim 8, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Hassan also teaches a computer program product stored on a computer readable storage medium, the computer program product comprising program code (Abstract, the system can involve a processor and memory with instructions).
Regarding claim 9, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 9 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 10 also corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 11 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 13 also corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Hassan also teaches a system comprising:
a computing device;
an I/O component operatively coupled to the computing device; and
a memory operatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the computing device includes logic and is configured to perform a method (Abstract, the system includes a processor connected to a memory and inherently includes an interface or connector connecting the processor and memory; see also Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 15 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 16 also corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 17 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 20 also corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan, as applied in claims 1, 8 and 14, and further in view of Cao (R. Cao et al., "Curvilinear Property Measurement and Computation Methods for Physical Verification of Bent Waveguides in Photonic Integrated Circuit Layouts," IEEE, published 2014).
Regarding claim 6, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, Hassan does not expressly disclose wherein the curved feature includes a portion of a waveguide within the IC layout.
In the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches wherein the curved feature includes a portion of a waveguide within the IC layout (Cao page 1, it is known, in photonic IC designs, to have a system for validating the curvature of a waveguide).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the curved feature includes a portion of a waveguide within the IC layout as suggested in Cao into Hassan because both Hassan and Cao pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Hassan and Cao pertain to the manufacturing of integrated circuits, and in particular design-rule checking for curvilinear shapes in layouts. In Cao, the curvature of various components are evaluated, including waveguides. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Hassan, so that the design-rule checking systems of Hassan could be applied to a variety of components e.g., see Cao page 1.
Regarding claim 19, Hassan teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Claim 19 also corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. At best, the prior art of record, specifically, Hassan (US 2021/0133293) teaches receiving an IC layout with a curvilinear feature and analyzing it to determine whether segments satisfy manufacturing criteria e.g., see Hassan Figs. 2-4, [0021-0030, 0017]. Cao (R. Cao et al., "Curvilinear Property Measurement and Computation Methods for Physical Verification of Bent Waveguides in Photonic Integrated Circuit Layouts," IEEE, published 2014) teaches a system for curvilinear layout feature validation e.g., see Cao page 35. Sahouria (US 2014/0215414) pertains to a method for measuring curvature in an IC design and determining concave and convex curvature information e.g., see Sahouria Fig. 4, [0035].
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 8 and 14.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant alleges that the claim has been amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. That is, claim 8 has been amended to recite, “a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium …” The amendment is appreciated; however, in the view of the Examiner, the claim still pertains to and is limited to the computer program product, which may be software alone; the phrasing about storing the program product on a non-transitory medium is part of the preamble and may be regarded as an expression of intended use. Thus claim 8 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.01. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 8-13 is maintained.
To overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner recommends amending claim 8 to directly pertain to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium i.e., “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program product …” Various formulations are possible.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that the cited prior art does not teach the amended limitation, “determining, based on the feature angle and the radius, whether the curvilinear interval is divisible into a plurality of linear segments each having a same length and a same orientation differential.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hasan Figs. 3, 4, [0020-0028] teaches a particular technique for determining a curvilinear feature satisfies a design rule/criteria. Hasan teaches determining at least one radius and angle measurement for the curvilinear feature. In addition, the technique involves dividing up the curvilinear feature into segments (chords) and measuring the length of each chord. (Each segment/chord is a line between vertices defined in the curvilinear feature). Inherently, this involves a determination as to whether each chord has the same or different lengths. It should be further noted that the chords may be the same length e.g., see Hasan [0022], which contemplates a distance between each pair of vertices being the same predetermined value i.e., 0.7 * minCD. The above technique further involves applying the same orientation criteria to each chord e.g., involving a testing of an associated radius of curvature, which is based on the orientation/position of the chord relative to the endlines. In at least the above manner, Hasan teaches the limitation, “determining, based on the feature angle and the radius, whether the curvilinear interval is divisible into a plurality of linear segments each having a same length and a same orientation differential.” Examiner notes that it may be helpful to further amend the claims based on [0027] of the specification i.e., the curvilinear interval connects first and second endlines; the curvilinear interval is divided into multiple, successive linear segments; the multiple, successive linear segments span the feature angle; the orientation of each of the successive linear segments increases by a same amount, etc. It should be noted that further review of the claims and prior art are required and that upon further review, Examiner may determine that the above approach does not patentably distinguish the cited prior art. Applicant further alleges that claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 are allowable in view of their dependency on claims 1, 8 and 14. Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being taught by Hassan and/or Cao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peng (US 2024/0241436) teaches a technique for detecting a curvature violation e.g., see Peng Abstract, [0181].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights