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 .
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 office action with notification date 05/20/2026 is vacated by the instant office action in order to correct typo errors in response number 6 below.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 03/17/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
3. The drawings filed on 05/23/2024 have been accepted.
II. Objections
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and not found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
6. Page 7-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception … Example 38 presents the following claim: A method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer comprising: initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer, ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application.
6.1 Argument in support to response to number 6 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process” (thinking perform with the help of pen and paper despite that is performed by computer in the claim), which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, In the instant case the limitations relative to “identifying a structure of interest in the IC design ... identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design ... identifying, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure ... evaluating a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at the operating temperature of the structure of interest” could be easily performed mentally with the help of pen and paper after gathering the necessary information. In addition, “identifying ... evaluating” are clearly mental-processes.
Furthermore, the limitations relative to “modeling” involves an abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions because modeling in engineering requires mathematical-concepts, equations, etc., which could be performed with pen and paper in the manner set forth in the instant claims.
Furthermore, the claims of the instant application are not analogous to Example 38, as argued by the Applicant(s), because Example 38 claims a method comprising “initializing a model ...”, which is different than “modeling ...” as claimed in the instant application.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims do not involve a particular machines and/or article transformation in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the IC design industry, which are used for the routine data gathering of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. In addition, the step relative to “generating a revised IC design” is simply the application (“apply it” or equivalent according to MPEP 2106.05(f)) of the abstract-ideas/judicial-exceptions. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mental processes, mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
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.
7. Claim 1-20 is 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.
8. Claim 1 is directed to “identifying a structure of interest in the IC design; assigning a thermal affected zone to a region of the IC design, such that the thermal affected zone encompasses at least a portion of the structure of interest; identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and …; modeling a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identifying, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identifying, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; assigning a rating factor based on a distance between the structure of interest and the first neighboring structure; modeling an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on the highest temperature and the rating factor; evaluating a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at the operating temperature of the structure of interest; and generating a revised IC design by revising the IC design, the generating a revised IC design comprising revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest, based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, the method comprising: … that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
8.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
8.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “identifying a structure of interest in the IC design; assigning a thermal affected zone to a region of the IC design, such that the thermal affected zone encompasses at least a portion of the structure of interest; identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone …; modeling a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identifying, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identifying, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; assigning a rating factor based on a distance between the structure of interest and the first neighboring structure; modeling an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on the highest temperature and the rating factor; evaluating a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at the operating temperature of the structure of interest; and generating a revised IC design by revising the IC design, the generating a revised IC design comprising revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest, based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
8.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to the design and manufacturing of semiconductors, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
8.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, the method comprising: … and that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
9. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the structure of interest is a first conductive line, and the first neighboring structure is a second conductive line”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein: the modeling a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures includes: modeling a temperature rise for the plurality of structures during operation of the modeling an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on the highest temperature and the rating factor includes: multiplying the temperature rise of the first neighboring structure by a number less than 1 and greater than 0”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
11. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “dividing the thermal affected zone into a plurality of sub-zones, each sub-zone representing a different distance from the structure of interest, and assigning a corresponding plurality of rating factors to the plurality of sub-zones”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein: the assigning a rating factor based on a distance between the structure of interest and the first neighboring structure includes: selecting the rating factor from among the plurality of rating factors”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 6 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “the plurality of rating factors includes a first rating factor, a second rating factor, and a third rating factor, the first rating factor corresponding to a shortest distance from the structure of interest among the first through third rating factors, the first rating factor corresponds to a first number less than 1 and greater than 0, the second rating factor corresponds to a second number less than 1 and greater than 0, the third rating factor corresponds to a third number less than 1 and greater than 0, the first number is greater than the second number, and the second number is greater than the third number”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “a difference between the first number and the second number is greater than a difference between the second number and the third number”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 8 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein each sub-zone corresponds to a contacted poly pitch”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “modeling an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on a highest temperature and a rating factor in the revised IC design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “generating a tape-out data file based on the revised IC design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 11 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “manufacturing an IC device based on the revised IC design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 12 is directed to “identifying a structure of interest in a first IC design; assigning a thermal affected zone to a region of the first IC design, such that the thermal affected zone encompasses at least a portion of the structure of interest; identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and …; modeling a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identifying, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identifying, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; calculating a first temperature rise by multiplying the highest temperature by a temperature rise ratio, the temperature rise ratio being a number less than 1 and greater than 0; modeling a first operating temperature of the structure of interest; evaluating a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at a second operating temperature, the second operating temperature being at least a sum of the first operating temperature and the first temperature rise; revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest, based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter; and generating a second IC design by revising the first IC design to include the revised electrical current specification of the structure of interest”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, the method comprising: … that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 12 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
19.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 12 is directed to a method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
19.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “identifying a structure of interest in a first IC design; assigning a thermal affected zone to a region of the first IC design, such that the thermal affected zone encompasses at least a portion of the structure of interest; identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and …; modeling a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identifying, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identifying, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; calculating a first temperature rise by multiplying the highest temperature by a temperature rise ratio, the temperature rise ratio being a number less than 1 and greater than 0; modeling a first operating temperature of the structure of interest; evaluating a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at a second operating temperature, the second operating temperature being at least a sum of the first operating temperature and the first temperature rise; revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest, based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter; and generating a second IC design by revising the first IC design to include the revised electrical current specification of the structure of interest”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
19.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 12 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to the design and manufacturing of semiconductors, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
19.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 12 recites the additional element(s) “A method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, the method comprising: … and that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
20. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “modeling a second temperature rise of at least one of a transistor, an active region, or a Hi-R device during operation of the IC device, wherein the second operating temperature 1s at least a sum of the first operating temperature, the first temperature rise, and the second temperature rise”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 14 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the temperature rise ratio decreases with increasing distance between the structure of interest and the first neighboring structure”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
22. Claim 15 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “wherein: the thermal affected zone has a center located at the structure of interest, and the temperature rise ratio has a minimum value at a location in the thermal affected zone that is farthest from the center”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. Claim 16 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “modeling an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on a highest temperature and a rating factor in the second IC design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
24. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 that depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “manufacturing the IC device based on the second IC design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
25. Claim 18 is directed to “generate a device layout design from the device layout design data;
identify a structure of interest in the device layout design; assign a thermal affected zone to a region of the device layout design …; identify a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and that correspond to device elements that self-heat during operation of a device that is based on the device layout design; model a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identify, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identify, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; assign a rating factor based on a distance between the structure of interest and the
first neighboring structure; model an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on the highest temperature and the rating factor; and generate a revised device layout design by revising the device layout design, the generating a revised device layout design including revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A system for evaluating electromigration comprising: at least one memory configured to store device layout design data and device layout thermal equations; at least one processor configured to: access the at least one memory, and retrieve the device layout design data and the device layout thermal equations; … that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 18 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
25.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 18 is directed to a system for evaluating electromigration, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
25.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 18 recites: “generate a device layout design from the device layout design data; identify a structure of interest in the device layout design; assign a thermal affected zone to a region of the device layout design …; identify a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone and that correspond to device elements that self-heat during operation of a device that is based on the device layout design; model a corresponding plurality of operating temperatures for the plurality of structures and identify, among the plurality of operating temperatures, a highest temperature; identify, among the plurality of structures, a structure having the highest temperature as a first neighboring structure; assign a rating factor based on a distance between the structure of interest and the first neighboring structure; model an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on the highest temperature and the rating factor; and generate a revised device layout design by revising the device layout design, the generating a revised device layout design including revising an electrical current specification of the structure of interest based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
25.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 18 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to the design and manufacturing of semiconductors, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
25.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 18 recites the additional element(s) “A system for evaluating electromigration comprising: at least one memory configured to store device layout design data and device layout thermal equations; at least one processor configured to: access the at least one memory, and retrieve the device layout design data and the device layout thermal equations; … that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
26. Claim 19 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: evaluate a temperature-dependent electromigration parameter of the structure of interest at the operating temperature of the structure of interest”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
27. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 that depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: model an operating temperature of the structure of interest based on a highest temperature and a rating factor in the revised device layout design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) YU TSENG (Pub. No.: US 2020/0065451, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches a method of evaluating a heat effect in an integrated circuit (IC) design, the method comprising:
identifying a structure of interest in the IC design;
assigning a thermal affected zone to a region of the IC design, such that the thermal affected zone encompasses at least a portion of the structure of interest;
identifying a plurality of structures that are, in whole or in part, in the thermal affected zone
and that correspond to IC device elements that self-heat during operation of an IC device that is based on the IC design;
generating a revised IC design by revising the IC design based on the evaluation of the temperature-dependent electromigration parameter (Figs. 3 and/or 6A, [0033]-[0056] and/or [0063]-[0067]
b) YU TSENG (Pub. No.: US 2020/0134132, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches that “A method includes conducting an electromigration (EM) check process on a schematic design, conducting a mitigating process to mitigate one or more electromigration violations identified during conducting the EM check process, and generating a layout design of the schematic design after at least one iteration of a design process including the EM check process and the mitigating process” (Abstract).
c) TSENG (Pub. No.: US 2020/0135514, which was provided in the prior office action) teaches that “A method for evaluating a heat sensitive structure involving identifying a heat sensitive structure in an integrated circuit design layout, the heat sensitive structure characterized by a nominal temperature, identifying a heat generating structure within a thermal coupling range of the heat sensitive structure, calculating an operating temperature of the first heat generating structure; calculating a temperature increase or the heat sensitive structure induced by thermal coupling to the heat generating structure at the operating temperature; and performing an electromigration (EM) analysis of the heat sensitive structure at an evaluation temperature obtained by adjusting the nominal temperature by the temperature increase induced by the heat generating structure” (Abstract).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights