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 on September 7th, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment to the drawings, the amendment to the specification, the amendment of the claims have been acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
In view of the amendments and arguments, objections to the drawings, objections to the specifications, requirement for information, objections to claims 4 and 10, and the rejections of claims under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment to the claims, however, necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 7th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b), Applicant argued:
Claims 1 and 6 are amended to recite "providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern".
Applicant indicates that in the technical field, the pattern recognition apparatus may be implemented by a computer system including a processor and a non-transitory computer- readable medium storing instructions. When executed by the processor, these instructions cause the computer system to perform the specific algorithm for establishing a memory cell group as disclosed herein. The algorithm includes the steps illustrated in the flowcharts of FIGs. 1 and 3 and described in detail in paragraphs [0018] to [0031] and [0037] to [0046] of the specification.
Therefore, the specification teach the implicit structure, namely the algorithm for performing specific functions. Through this amendment, claims 1 and 6 clearly disclose the corresponding structure of the pattern recognition apparatus.
According to the specification of the present application, those skilled in the art inherently and uniquely understand to require implementation through a computer system including a pattern recognition apparatus including a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. It is impractical to perform such complex pattern recognition and iterative calculations manually. Therefore, the above feature added in claims 1 and 6 should be seen as a clarification of the inherent disclosure rather than the introduction of new matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In particular, the claimed “pattern recognition apparatus” is not a well-known industry terminology that implies any specific components such as “processor”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. The terminology of “pattern recognition apparatus” by itself does not imply components such as “processor” or “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. As such, the newly added features in claims 1 and 6 are not supported by Applicant’s specification as at the time of filing of this application.
Additionally, while generally “apparatus” in the industry MAY contain the added components, Applicant has not established via evidence that specifically claimed “pattern recognition apparatus” in the industry MUST inherently or implicitly include such added components. (For one, generally “apparatus” in the industries are broad enough to potentially include every component, mechanical, chemical, or electrical or electronic. At the same time, Applicant’s “pattern recognition apparatus” is not particularly well known in the industry as a term of art that would require any component.)
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’”)
In the present case, while it is possible to implement the claimed “pattern recognition apparatus” with “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”, it is also entirely possible to implement the claimed “pattern recognition apparatus” without such components. (For example, state machines may be used instead of “processor”, and volatile memories may be used instead of “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”).
Applicant has also argued that “It is impractical to perform such complex pattern recognition and iterative calculations manually.” However, “impracticality” is not impossibility, and thus Applicant’s own statement admitted that it is also possible to implement such an apparatus with to “manually” perform the process steps or with human interactions involved, however “impractical” it might be.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the claimed method steps performed by the “pattern recognition apparatus” that would require “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. Even “algorithm” was not expressly disclosed nor required by the specification or by the claimed method steps of “dividing the memory cells in an nth row of rows in the memory cell array into a plurality of row groups, wherein the row groups are identical, and the memory cells in the row groups are different; and determining whether preceding n rows and succeeding n rows of the rows are repeated” as recited in claim 1, and “dividing the memory cells in an n* row of the rows in the memory cell array into a plurality of row groups, wherein the row groups are identical, and the memory cells in the row groups are different; and determining whether in the row groups in the n* row there are memory cells which are identical to the memory cells in the row group in the first row, where n is a positive integer greater than 1”, as recited in claim 6. (These disclosed steps have no computations involved at all, thus cannot be reasonable said to inherently require “algorithm”).
Therefore, the specification merely disclosed “steps”, and not implicitly /inherently teaching any structure, as argued by the Applicant.
Thus, claims 1 and 6 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of written description, namely lack of support for the newly amended claim limitations of “providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern” as recited in claims 1 and 6.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argued:
In the amended claims 1 and 6, a pattern recognition apparatus is provided, and the pattern recognition apparatus includes a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern.
Based on the above, in the amended claims 1 and 6, a specifically programmed computer executes a specific and unconventional algorithm to solve the technical problems.
For Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the amended claims 1 and 6 recite a method for establishing a memory cell group, which is within the scope of the statutory patent subject matter under § 101.
For Step 2A Prong One Analysis, Applicant believes that the amended claims 1 and 6 are not directed to the Abstract idea itself. The method of the amended claims 1 and 6 are not just a mental classification activity, but are intended to solve a specific technical problem in the semiconductor field: how to quickly and accurately classify a physical memory array to define memory cell repeating groups, thereby improving analyses of product yield and failure modes (paragraph [0007]).
Furthermore, the methods the amended claims 1 and 6 are closely combined with a specific technical object "layout pattern of the memory cell array", and the purpose is to produce a specific result with practical technical use "memory cell repeating groups". Therefore, the amended claims 1 and 6 should be regarded as directed to a specific application that solves a technical problem, rather than the abstract concept itself.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis, Applicant indicates that rather than simply "applying" an abstract concept, the amended claims 1 and 6 provide a specific technical solution that brings significant improvements to another technology (semiconductor analysis). As described in "Description of Related Art" of the specification, manual classification of the memory cell groups often consumes a considerable amount of time and is prone to high error rates. The methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 automate and standardize the process through specific algorithm steps, significantly improving speed and accuracy, which is a technical improvement.
In addition, the methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 are operated on a "layout pattern" that represents a physical semiconductor structure. The steps of the methods are designed for the special two-dimensional structure of the memory array, rather than a general mathematical classification. The output of the methods, the "memory cell repeating group", is directly used for subsequent analyses of product yield and failure modes, which has a substantial impact on the manufacturing and testing process of the physical device.
For Step 2B Analysis, Ho and Keim do not disclose, teach or suggest the steps for defining the memory cell repeating group.
Specifically, in Ho, the grouping is based on process-related "core group" and "gap group" for failure analysis (paragraph [0028] and FIGs 4A-4F), which is completely from the methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 of the present application.
In addition, Keim only mentions in general terms that there is a "layout-aware diagnosis tool." This merely demonstrates that the use of computer tools is routine in this field, but does not disclose, teach or suggest the specific, multi-step recognition and grouping algorithm in the amended claims 1 and 6 of the present application.
For at least the reasons submitted above, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims 1 and 6 of the present application and the dependent claims thereof are not merely Abstract idea, but rather technical solutions that are integrated into practical applications and contain significantly more elements, fully complying with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas and mental processes without significantly more.
For Step 2A Prong One Analysis, Applicant argued
“The method of the amended claims 1 and 6 are not just a mental classification activity, but are intended to solve a specific technical problem in the semiconductor field: how to quickly and accurately classify a physical memory array to define memory cell repeating groups, thereby improving analyses of product yield and failure modes (paragraph [0007]).”
Applicant has not shown where the claimed classification cannot be performed mentally, nor do the claims specifically recite “improving analyses of product yield and failure modes” in any way that cannot be performed mentally. As such, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Step 2A Prong One Analysis show that claims do recite abstract ideas and/or mental processes.
Applicant argued,
“Furthermore, the methods the amended claims 1 and 6 are closely combined with a specific technical object "layout pattern of the memory cell array", and the purpose is to produce a specific result with practical technical use "memory cell repeating groups". Therefore, the amended claims 1 and 6 should be regarded as directed to a specific application that solves a technical problem, rather than the abstract concept itself.”
Examiner disagree with Applicant’s conclusion. Specifically, it is clear from cited references such as HO, that NEITHER “layout pattern” NOR “memory cell repeating groups” are physical components or devices, but rather are abstract concepts. “Layout patterns” are merely information representing the layout of memory cell arrays, and “memory cell repeating groups” are even more artificial abstract concepts, as entirely made up “groupings” that have no meaning other than being grouped according to some criterion. Examiner notes that many abstract ideas may have technical connections, thus not all concepts with technical connections are automatically not abstract ideas.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis, Applicant argued,
“Applicant indicates that rather than simply "applying" an abstract concept, the amended claims 1 and 6 provide a specific technical solution that brings significant improvements to another technology (semiconductor analysis). As described in "Description of Related Art" of the specification, manual classification of the memory cell groups often consumes a considerable amount of time and is prone to high error rates. The methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 automate and standardize the process through specific algorithm steps, significantly improving speed and accuracy, which is a technical improvement.”
First as a note on novelty, Applicant’s own argument appears to admit that Applicant’s claimed invention is nothing more than automating what is already done manually in the industry, “manual classification”, as Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). While the benefits of automation of manual process may be present, Applicant has not presented any evidence or argument that the automated process is significantly different than the manual process beyond “automate and standardize”.
Applicant has not provided specific point of error in the Step 2A Prong Two Analysis of the previous Office Action. Specifically:
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array;
providing a pattern recognition apparatus for performing a recognition step on the layout pattern.
These additional elements are not integrated the judicial exception (abstract ideas and mental processes) into a practical application, because
the recited “providing a memory cell array” are not claimed to be altered or affected by the Abstract Ideas in the claim. As such, the recited “providing a memory cell array” merely link the use of the abstract idea of grouping to a particular field of use, and do not in any way integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
The recited “providing a pattern recognition apparatus” in the claims is merely provided “for performing a recognition step on the layout pattern”.
First, the “pattern recognition apparatus” is not recited as actually performing the recognition step, but rather it is recited as “for performing”. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the recited “pattern recognition apparatus” may be an apparatus that is used “for performing”, e.g. as an aid for performing, but not necessarily must perform the recognition step by itself. In other words, it may be a tool (paper or pen or pencil) that aids human beings in performing the recognition step. Other than the claimed process steps themselves, the claims do not reflect any way of achieving any improvements to the functions of the “pattern recognition apparatus”. As such, the recited “providing a pattern recognition apparatus” merely link the use of the abstract idea of grouping to a particular field of use, and do not in any way integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
Second, as noted in 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, the “pattern recognition apparatus” recited in the claims have no corresponding structure or composition in the specification. As such, the recited “pattern recognition apparatus” covers all possible implementations that achieve the same functions, including generic computers. Other than the claimed process steps themselves, the claims do not reflect any way of achieving any improvements to the functions of the “pattern recognition apparatus”. Thus, “pattern recognition apparatus” does not integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
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);
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
Additionally, even with Applicant’s amendments to the claims:
The recited “providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” in the claims is merely provided “for performing a recognition step on the layout pattern”.
the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” recited in the claims as amended, cover generic computer processors. Other than the claimed process steps themselves, the claims do not reflect any way of achieving any improvements to the functions of the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. Thus, “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” does not integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
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);
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
As such, For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Applicant further argued,
“In addition, the methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 are operated on a "layout pattern" that represents a physical semiconductor structure. The steps of the methods are designed for the special two-dimensional structure of the memory array, rather than a general mathematical classification. The output of the methods, the "memory cell repeating group", is directly used for subsequent analyses of product yield and failure modes, which has a substantial impact on the manufacturing and testing process of the physical device.”
As similarly indicated above, it is clear from cited references such as HO, that NEITHER “layout pattern” NOR “memory cell repeating groups” are physical components or devices, but rather are abstract concepts. “Layout patterns” are merely information representing the layout of memory cell arrays, and “memory cell repeating groups” are even more artificial abstract concepts, as entirely made up “groupings” that have no meaning other than being grouped according to some criterion.
Additionally, The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
Applicant argued,
For Step 2B Analysis, Ho and Keim do not disclose, teach or suggest the steps for defining the memory cell repeating group.
Specifically, in Ho, the grouping is based on process-related "core group" and "gap group" for failure analysis (paragraph [0028] and FIGs 4A-4F), which is completely from the methods of the amended claims 1 and 6 of the present application.
In addition, Keim only mentions in general terms that there is a "layout-aware diagnosis tool." This merely demonstrates that the use of computer tools is routine in this field, but does not disclose, teach or suggest the specific, multi-step recognition and grouping algorithm in the amended claims 1 and 6 of the present application.
Applicant’s argument for Step 2B Analysis applies the incorrect test, and is thus moot. Step 2B Analysis is NOT a question of novelty of the overall claimed invention, but whether the additional elements (that are NOT abstract concepts) of the claims are significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05.
In particularly,
“Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
…
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));”
See MPEP 2106.05.I.A.
The “additional elements” (that are NOT abstract concepts) of the claim 1, for example are: “providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array; providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern”. The ”additional elements” do not require all of the features in the claims that are abstract concepts.
As stated for claim 1 in the previous Office Action (and revised for the amended features):
The additional steps recited here are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities, in view of Ho et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 20220172796 (herein “HO”), and Keim, “Layout-Aware Diagnosis”, Semiconductor Digest, https://sst.semiconductor-digest.com/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/mentorpaper_44405.pdf, November 2010 (herein “KEIM”).
HO discloses providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array (FIGs. 4A-4F, 3 and 5, step 104, providing memory cells array with multiple bit memory cells, and layout pattern, and using the layout to define a core group and a gap group, [0027], “step 104 is performed, where a single-bit grouping table is defined according to a word-line layout, a bit-line layout, and an active area layout”).
KEIM discloses providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern (Pages 3-9, for example, “layout-aware diagnosis Tessent Diagnosis tool”, “Mentor Graphic’s diagnosis tool, Tessent Diagnosis”, e.g. a pattern recognition apparatus for performing recognition step on layout pattern).
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.
Therefore, the rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependent claims under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 6 are amended to recite “providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern”.
The underlined portion contain subject matter that are not supported by the specification of the application as originally filed. Applicant has made arguments that the newly added claim limitations above are inherently or implicitly supported by the specification as originally filed, but the arguments are not persuasive (see above).
Claims 2-5, and 7-11 are rejected as dependent upon the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas and mental processes without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 is ineligible
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes.
Claim 1 recites the following steps which are Abstract Ideas and Mental processes that can be performed by a human mind:
dividing the memory cells in an nth row of rows in the memory cell array into a plurality of row groups, wherein the row groups are identical, and the memory cells in the row groups are different; and
determining whether preceding n rows and succeeding n rows of the rows are repeated; and
according to a recognition result provided by the pattern recognition apparatus through performing the recognition step, collectively establishing a portion of the memory cells as a memory cell repeating group, so that the memory cell array is composed of a plurality of the memory cell repeating groups
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array;
providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern.
These additional elements are not integrated the judicial exception (abstract ideas and mental processes) into a practical application, because
the recited “providing a memory cell array” are not claimed to be altered or affected by the Abstract Ideas in the claim. As such, the recited “providing a memory cell array” merely link the use of the abstract idea of grouping to a particular field of use, and do not in any way integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
The recited “providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” in the claims is merely provided “to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern”.
the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” recited in the claims as amended, cover generic computer processors. Other than the claimed process steps themselves, the claims do not reflect any way of achieving any improvements to the functions of the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. Thus, “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” does not integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
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);
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional steps recited here are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities, in view of Ho et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 20220172796 (herein “HO”), and Keim, “Layout-Aware Diagnosis”, Semiconductor Digest, https://sst.semiconductor-digest.com/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/mentorpaper_44405.pdf, November 2010 (herein “KEIM”).
HO discloses providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array (FIGs. 4A-4F, 3 and 5, step 104, providing memory cells array with multiple bit memory cells, and layout pattern, and using the layout to define a core group and a gap group, [0027], “step 104 is performed, where a single-bit grouping table is defined according to a word-line layout, a bit-line layout, and an active area layout”).
KEIM discloses providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern (Pages 3-9, for example, “layout-aware diagnosis Tessent Diagnosis tool”, “Mentor Graphic’s diagnosis tool, Tessent Diagnosis”, e.g. a pattern recognition apparatus for performing recognition step on layout pattern).
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.
Independent Claim 6 is ineligible
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes.
Claim 6 recites the following steps which are Abstract Ideas and Mental processes that can be performed by a human mind:
dividing the memory cells in an nth row of the rows in the memory cell array into a plurality of row groups, wherein the row groups are identical, and the memory cells in the row groups are different; and
determining whether in the row groups in the nth row there are memory cells which are identical to the memory cells in the row group in the first row, where n is a positive integer greater than 1; and
according to a recognition result provided by the pattern recognition apparatus through performing the recognition step, collectively establishing a portion of the memory cells as a memory cell repeating group, so that the memory cell array is composed of a plurality of the memory cell repeating groups.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a plurality of dummy memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array, wherein a first row of rows in the memory cell array comprises the dummy memory cells;
providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern.
These additional elements are not integrated the judicial exception (abstract ideas and mental processes) into a practical application, because
the recited “providing a memory cell array” are not claimed to be altered or affected by the Abstract Ideas in the claim. As such, the recited “providing a memory cell array” merely link the use of the abstract idea of grouping to a particular field of use, and do not in any way integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
The recited “providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” in the claims is merely provided “to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern”.
the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” recited in the claims as amended, cover generic computer processors. Other than the claimed process steps themselves, the claims do not reflect any way of achieving any improvements to the functions of the “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”. Thus, “pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” does not integrate the abstract ideas and mental processes of grouping memory cells into memory cell groups into any practical application.
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);
-see MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional steps recited here are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities, in view of HO, and KEIM.
HO discloses providing a memory cell array comprising a plurality of memory cells and a layout pattern of the memory cell array (FIGs. 4A-4F, 3 and 5, step 104, providing memory cells array with multiple bit memory cells, and layout pattern, and using the layout to define a core group and a gap group, [0027], “step 104 is performed, where a single-bit grouping table is defined according to a word-line layout, a bit-line layout, and an active area layout”).
KEIM discloses providing a pattern recognition apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the pattern recognition apparatus to perform a recognition step on the layout pattern (Pages 3-9, for example, “layout-aware diagnosis Tessent Diagnosis tool”, “Mentor Graphic’s diagnosis tool, Tessent Diagnosis”, e.g. a pattern recognition apparatus for performing recognition step on layout pattern).
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.
Dependent Claim 2 is ineligible
See claim 1 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
Claim 2 further recites, according to the recognition result of performing the recognition step on the nth row: (a) when the preceding n rows and the succeeding n rows are repeated, collectively establishing the memory cells in a first row group in each row of the preceding n rows as the memory cell repeating group, and (b) when the preceding n rows and the succeeding n rows are not repeated, performing the recognition step on a next row of the rows until (a) is satisfied.
The additional limitations of Claim 2 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 1, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 1.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 3 is ineligible
See claim 2 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
Claim 3 further recites, wherein after providing the pattern recognition apparatus, the recognition step is performed on a first row of the rows in the memory cell array.
The additional limitations of Claim 3 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 2, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 2.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 2.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 2.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 2.
Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 4 is ineligible
See claim 1 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
Claim 4 further recites, wherein the recognition step performed on the layout pattern further comprises recognizing a layer stacking structure of each of the memory cells.
The additional limitations of Claim 4 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 1, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 1.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 1.
Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 5 is ineligible
See claim 4 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
Claim 5 further recites, wherein the difference in the memory cells comprises a difference in the layer stacking structures of the memory cells.
The additional limitations of Claim 5 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 4, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 4.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 4.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 4.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 4.
Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 7 is ineligible
See claim 6 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 7 further recites, according to the recognition result of performing the recognition step on the nth row: (a) when in the row groups in the nth row there are memory cells which are identical to the memory cells in the row group in the first row, setting the memory cells in the row groups in the nth row that are identical to the memory cells in the row groups in the first row as repeated memory cells, and collectively establishing the memory cells in the row groups in the nth row other than the repeated memory cells and the memory cells in the first row group in each of preceding (n-1)th rows of the rows as a memory cell repeating group, and (b) when in the row groups in the nth row there is no memory cell which is identical to the memory cells in the row groups in the first row, performing the recognition step on a next row of the rows until (a) is satisfied.
The additional limitations of Claim 7 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 6, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 6.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 8 is ineligible
See claim 7 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 8 further recites, wherein after providing the pattern recognition apparatus, the recognition step is sequentially performed on the first row and a second row of the rows in the memory cell array.
The additional limitations of Claim 8 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 7, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 7.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 7.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 7.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 7.
Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 9 is ineligible
See claim 8 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 9 further recites, wherein after establishing the memory cell repeating group, the method further comprises: determining whether the memory cells in the memory cell repeating group other than the repeated memory cells from the first row group in the nth row to a first row group in a (2n-1)th row of the rows are repeated.
The additional limitations of Claim 9 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 8, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 8.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 8.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 8.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 8.
Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 10 is ineligible
See claim 6 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 10 further recites, wherein the recognition step performed on the layout pattern further comprises recognizing a layer stacking structure of each of the memory cells.
The additional limitations of Claim 10merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 6, and do not include any additional elements beyond the additional elements recited in Claim 6.
Thus, for Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim recites Abstract ideas and mental processes, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
For Step 2B Analysis: The additional elements of the claims are not significantly more than the judicial exception, for substantially the same reason as stated for claim 6.
Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 11 is ineligible
See claim 10 above for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Step 1 analysis under 35 USC 101, the claims recite statutory subject matter (methods): a method for establishing a memory cell group comprising different memory cells.
For Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 11 further recites, wherein the difference in the memory cells comprises a difference in the layer stacking structures of the memory cells.
The additional limitations of Claim 11 merely further limits the Abstract Ideas recited in Claim 10, and do not include any additional