DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed April 2, 2026. Claims 1, 4, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 18-20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 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. Claims 1, 21 and 23 have been amended to recite “sending a second query to the first database using the unique identification…to retrieve structured information about the register from the first database.” The specification does not appear to describe or mention a two-step process of retrieving the unique identification from the second database and then using the retrieved unique identification to retrieve information from the first database. In fact, the specification does not appear to mention retrieving the unique identification. Instead, the specification only describes using the unique identification to retrieve information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2012/0117116 A1) (‘Jacobson’) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2025/0165568 A1) (‘Carpenter’).
With respect to claim 1, Jacobson teaches a method comprising:
receiving information, the information comprising structured information and unstructured information (paragraphs 112 and 124);
storing the structured information in a first database (paragraphs 97, 99 and 124);
storing the unstructured information in a second database (paragraphs 38, 97, 124);
sending a first query comprising search text to the second database (paragraphs 117-118);
processing the first query to retrieve, from the second database, unstructured information and a unique identification (i.e. row identifier) (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127);
sending a second query to the first database using the unique identification to automatically retrieve structured information from the first database (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127); and
providing the structured information and the unstructured information for use in validating an integrated circuit (paragraphs 121 and 127).
Jacobson does not explicitly teach information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit; or a unique identification associated with the register.
Carpenter teaches storage and retrieval of information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit (paragraphs 30 and 55); and
a unique identification associated with the register (paragraphs 30 and 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the information of Jacobson to be information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit because the modification represents a substitution of one type of information for another type of information to achieve the same results; this modification (or type of information) does not affect the functionality of Jacobson. It further would have been obvious to combine Jacobson with Carpenter because both references deal with improving management of data, and Carpenter improves operation by making information more easily accessible and by facilitating how quickly information is accessed and viewed so that changes can be made faster and identified faster based on the information (Carpenter, paragraph 21 and 24).
With respect to claim 2, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the structured information and unstructured information (Jacobson, paragraphs 112 and 124) comprises data elements associated with each register of the plurality of registers, the data elements describing each particular register (Carpenter, paragraphs 27 and 30-31).
With respect to claim 3, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 2, wherein data elements for the structured information and data elements for the unstructured information each comprise a unique identification to link data elements for particular registers between the first database and the second database (Carpenter, paragraph 30, 44, and 55; Jacobson, paragraphs 123 and 126).
With respect to claim 4, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 3, wherein first query retrieves at least one unstructured data element for at least one register from the second database, and wherein the unique identification is used in the second query to retrieve at least one structured data element for the at least one register from the first database (Jacobson, paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127; Carpenter, paragraph 30, 44, and 55).
With respect to claim 11, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the structured information comprises, for the plurality of registers (Carpenter, paragraphs 25, 44, and 55), a register address (Carpenter, paragraphs 25, 44, and 55), a register name (Carpenter, paragraph 25), a size (Carpenter, paragraph 63), an access type (Carpenter, paragraph 63), and a reset value (Carpenter, paragraphs 32, 54, and 63).
With respect to claim 12, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the unstructured information comprises, for the plurality of registers, a text description (Carpenter, paragraphs 30-31, 54 and 63).
With respect to claim 13, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit comprises one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more input-output (I/O) circuits (Carpenter, Figs. 10-11; paragraphs 60, 99, 92, and 109).
With respect to claim 14, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an update of a hardware description language (Carpenter, paragraphs 30 and 111) for the integrated circuit, the update changing structured information for at least one register of the plurality of registers (Carpenter, paragraphs 24, 32, 57); and
updating the first database with the structured information that was changed (Carpenter, paragraphs 32 and 57) and one or more modified unique identifications (Jacobson, paragraphs 40, 50-51, 116, 123 and 126; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 44 and 55); and
updating the second database with one or more modified unique identifications (Jacobson, paragraphs 40, 50-51, 116, 123 and 126; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 44 and 55).
With respect to claim 17, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit is a physical circuit (Carpenter, paragraph 136).
With respect to claim 21, Jacobson teaches a method comprising:
receiving, in a validation software system, a first query comprising search text (paragraphs 117-118 and 127), structured information being stored in a first database (paragraphs 97, 99 and 124) and unstructured information being stored in a second database (paragraphs 38, 97, 124), and wherein the structured information and the unstructured information are linked by a unique identification (paragraphs 123 and 126);
sending the first query to the second database to search the unstructured information (paragraphs 117-118);
retrieving, from the second database, unstructured information and the unique identification (i.e. row identifier) (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127);
sending a second query to the first database using the unique identification to retrieve structured information from the first database (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127); and
providing the structured information and the unstructured information for use in validating an integrated circuit (paragraphs 121 and 127).
Jacobson does not explicitly teach text describing a register of a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit or information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit; or a unique identification associated with the register.
Carpenter teaches storage and retrieval of information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit and text describing a register of a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit (paragraphs 30 and 55); and
a unique identification associated with the register (paragraphs 30 and 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the information of Jacobson to be information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit because the modification represents a substitution of one type of information for another type of information to achieve the same results; this modification (or type of information) does not affect the functionality of Jacobson. It further would have been obvious to combine Jacobson with Carpenter because both references deal with improving management of data, and Carpenter improves operation by making information more easily accessible and by facilitating how quickly information is accessed and viewed so that changes can be made faster and identified faster based on the information (Carpenter, paragraph 21 and 24).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2012/0117116 A1) (‘Jacobson’) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2025/0165568 A1) (‘Carpenter’) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lopez et al. (US 2018/0088904 A1) (‘Lopez’).
With respect to claim 5, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the unique identification comprises a string corresponding to an address/location (Jacobson, paragraph 113; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 44 and 55); and also teaches hierarchical data formatting structure/levels of an integrated circuit (hierarchal data formatting structure organizes chip information of a semiconductor chip according to hierarchy levels based on structures or regions of the semiconductor chip. Example levels of a semiconductor chip include IP cores, chip regions, instances, and registers) (Carpenter, paragraphs 26, 55 and 60).
Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach a unique identification comprising a string corresponding to a hierarchical relation of a particular register in the integrated circuit.
Lopez teaches a unique identification comprising a string corresponding to a hierarchical relation of a particular register in the integrated circuit (register's address may be a global hierarchical address, such as identifying a multicore chip among a plurality of interconnected multicore chips, a supercluster of core clusters on the chip, a core cluster containing the target processing element, and a unique identifier of the individual operand register) (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the unique identification of Jacobson and Carpenter to correspond to a hierarchical relationship of a register as taught by Lopez because Carpenter teaches register identifiers and registers addresses and traversing hierarchical levels of register paths, and thus it is implied that register addresses/paths of Carpenter have hierarchical relation. Further, the modification would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because it would only entail swapping one unique identification with another unique identification to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 6, Jacobson in view of Carpenter and Lopez teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the string specifies a hierarchical location of the particular register in a plurality of nested integrated circuit subcircuits (Lopez, paragraph 28; Carpenter, paragraphs 26, 55 and 60).
Claim 7-10, 15, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2012/0117116 A1) (‘Jacobson’) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2025/0165568 A1) (‘Carpenter’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodson et al. (US 10,025,599 B1) (‘Goodson’).
With respect to claim 7, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches wherein the second database is a cloud computing environment database, wherein queries to the cloud computing environment database are processed using cloud software services (Carpenter, paragraphs 29, 44, 75, and 118).
Although Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches a local/source database (Jacobson, paragraph 38; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 49, and 59), Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is a local database.
Goodson teaches wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is a local database (on-premise source) and also teaches a second database is a cloud computing environment database (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 46-61; col. 5 line 54 – col. 6 line 1; col. 8 lines 42-52; col. 26 lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jacobson to use a local database and cloud database as taught by Goodson to provide connectivity to any number of data sources that is relatively inexpensive, robust and easily maintained; and to provide SQL access to a broad spectrum of data sources through a cloud-based connectivity service (Goodson, abstract).
With respect to claim 8, Jacobson in view of Carpenter and Goodson teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the cloud software services (Goodson, 1Fig. 1) comprise an indexed search of the unstructured information (Jacobson, Figs. 8A-8B; paragraphs 98-100; Carpenter, paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 9, Jacobson view of Carpenter and Goodson teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the cloud software services comprise an artificial intelligence (AI) search (Carpenter, paragraphs 90 and 109).
With respect to claim 10, Jacobson in view of Carpenter and Goodson teaches wherein the local database is an embedded transactional key-value store database (database using JSON format) running on a local computer (Carpenter, paragraphs 32-33; Goodson, Figs. 1-2, col. 6 lines 51-54).
With respect to claim 15, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the method is performed by a software system executing on a local computer configured with a first database (Jacobson, paragraph 38; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 49, and 59), the method further comprising:
receiving, by the software system, a hardware description language (HDL) (Verilog) representation of the integrated circuit (Carpenter, Fig. 1; paragraphs 30 and 107/(receiving data in Jacobson, paragraph 112);
traversing through the HDL to find the plurality of registers in a plurality of nested subsystems of the integrated circuit (Carpenter, paragraphs 21, 27 and 30);
extracting, for each register of the plurality of registers, structured data and unstructured data (Carpenter, paragraphs 30-31; Jacobson paragraphs 50, 55, 112, and 114); and
generating a unique identification for each register specifying a location in the nested subsystems (Jacobson, paragraphs 113, 123, and 126; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 44 and 54-55),
wherein said step of storing the structured information in the first database further comprises storing the unique identification for each register with corresponding structured information for each register (Jacobson, paragraphs 123 and 126; Carpenter, paragraphs 30 and 54-55), and
wherein said step of storing the unstructured information in the second database further comprises storing the unique identification for each register with corresponding unstructured information for each register (Jacobson, paragraphs 123 and 126; Carpenter, paragraphs 30 and 54-55).
Although Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches a local computer with a database (Jacobson, paragraph 38; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 49, and 59), Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach wherein the local computer is configured with the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data).
Goodson teaches wherein the local computer (on-premise source) is configured with the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jacobson to use a local database and cloud database as taught by Goodson to provide connectivity to any number of data sources that is relatively inexpensive, robust and easily maintained; and to provide SQL access to a broad spectrum of data sources through a cloud-based connectivity service (Goodson, abstract).
With respect to claim 22, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches wherein the second database is a cloud computing environment database (Carpenter, paragraphs 29, 44, 75, and 118).
Although Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches a local/source database (Jacobson, paragraph 38; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 49, and 59), Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is a local database on a local computer.
Goodson teaches wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is a local database on a local computer (on-premise source) and also teaches a second database is a cloud computing environment database (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 46-61; col. 5 line 54 – col. 6 line 1; col. 8 lines 42-52; col. 26 lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jacobson to use a local database and cloud database as taught by Goodson to provide connectivity to any number of data sources that is relatively inexpensive, robust and easily maintained; and to provide SQL access to a broad spectrum of data sources through a cloud-based connectivity service (Goodson, abstract).
With respect to claim 23, Jacobson teaches a computer system comprising:
a processor (paragraph 128);
a memory storing instructions (paragraphs 128-129), executed by the processor, to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first query comprising search text (paragraphs 117-118 and 127), structured information being stored in a first database (paragraphs 97, 99 and 124) and unstructured information being stored in a second database (paragraphs 38, 97, 124), and wherein the structured information and the unstructured information are linked by a unique identification (paragraphs 123 and 126);
sending the first query to the second database to search the unstructured information (paragraphs 117-118);
retrieving, from the second database, unstructured information and the unique identification (i.e. row identifier) (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127);
sending a second query to the first database using the unique identification to retrieve structured information from the first database (paragraphs 118-119, 123, and 126-127); and
providing the structured information and the unstructured information for use in validating an integrated circuit (paragraphs 121 and 127).
Jacobson does not explicitly teach text describing a register of a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit or information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit; wherein the second database is stored in a cloud computing environment; or a unique identification associated with the register.
Carpenter teaches storage and retrieval of information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit and text describing a register of a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit (paragraphs 30 and 55);
wherein the second database is a stored in cloud computing environment (Carpenter, paragraphs 29, 44, 75, and 118); and
a unique identification associated with the register (paragraphs 30 and 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the information of Jacobson to be information about a plurality of registers of an integrated circuit because the modification represents a substitution of one type of information for another type of information to achieve the same results; this modification (or type of information) does not affect the functionality of Jacobson. It further would have been obvious to combine Jacobson with Carpenter because both references deal with improving management of data, and Carpenter improves operation by making information more easily accessible and by facilitating how quickly information is accessed and viewed so that changes can be made faster and identified faster based on the information (Carpenter, paragraph 21 and 24).
Further regarding claim 23, although Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches a local/source database (Jacobson, paragraph 38; Carpenter, paragraphs 30, 49, and 59), Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is stored on a local computer.
Goodson teaches wherein the first database (which stores structured data and processes queries for the stored data) is a local database on a local computer (on-premise source) and also teaches a second database is a cloud computing environment database (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 46-61; col. 5 line 54 – col. 6 line 1; col. 8 lines 42-52; col. 26 lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jacobson to use a local database and cloud database as taught by Goodson to provide connectivity to any number of data sources that is relatively inexpensive, robust and easily maintained; and to provide SQL access to a broad spectrum of data sources through a cloud-based connectivity service (Goodson, abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2012/0117116 A1) (‘Jacobson’) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2025/0165568 A1) (‘Carpenter’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alquier et al. (US 2024/0394450 A1) (‘Alquier’).
With respect to claim 16, Jacobson in view of Carpenter teaches the method of claim 1.
Jacobson in view of Carpenter does not explicitly teach wherein the integrated circuit is represented as a hardware description language running in a circuit emulation environment.
Alquier teaches wherein the integrated circuit is represented as a hardware description language running in a circuit emulation environment (paragraphs 40 and 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Jacobson in view of Carpenter to run in a circuit emulation environment as taught by Alquier because emulating the operation of an integrated circuit design would enable verification, such as testing that the integrated circuit design operates in accordance with specifications and satisfies requirements (Alquier, abstract and paragraphs 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights