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 .
Status of claims
Elected Claims 1-16, have been reviewed and addressed below. Claims 17-22 has been restricted.
Claims 6 and 14 are free of art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being Anticipated by Han (2021/0033531).
With respect to claim 1, Han teaches a method comprising:
obtaining scattering properties of a biological structure (Han paragraph 70 “random scattering resembles diffusive transport of particles in many aspect”);
computationally evolving the biological structure to obtain one or more evolved descriptors (Han paragraph 102 “strain may be adjusted to set the desired level of anisotropy in the material”);
inverse-mapping the one or more evolved descriptors to real space to form an evolved structure design (Han paragraph 9 “for each pixel of the pattern assigning an intensity value based on the absence or presence of material to create an intensity map; extracting the structure factor from the intensity map and converting the structure factor into a real-space structure that consists of microspheres; and fabricating the real-space structure using microspheres that mimics the structure factor of the imaged pattern. The imaged structure may be a random pattern of fibrils.”); and
constructing the evolved structure (Han paragraph 113 “controlling the level of acceleration and the stack thickness during centrifugation, the level of randomness in the SiO.sub.2 microsphere structures may be adjusted”).
Claim 9 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Han teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the constructing the evolved structure comprises constructing the evolved structure using at least one of: 3D printing; melt blowing; spray coating; and electrospinning (Han paragraph 14).
Claim 10 is rejected as above
With respect to claim 3 Han teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the scattering properties comprises at least one of: optical diffusion approximation; a full solution to a radiative transfer equation; and Monte Carlo simulation (Han paragraph 70).
Claim 11 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 4 Han teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising imparting super light scattering to the evolved structure to a selected spectral region (Han paragraph 65).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 5 Han teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biological structure is a white beetle scale (Han paragraph 91).
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 7 Han teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the evolved structure comprises stronger scattering performance than the biological structure (Han paragraph 102).
Claim 15 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 8 Han teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more evolved descriptors include at least one of: two-point probability function; lineal-path function; chord-length distribution function; and surface correlation function (Han paragraph 83).
Claim 16 is rejected as 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 1-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are drawn to computer method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 9 recite “obtaining scattering properties of biological structure”, “computationally evolving the biological structure to obtain one or more evolved descriptors”, “inverse mapping the one or more evolved descriptors to real space to from an evolved structure design”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process since the steps can be performed manually using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “melt blowing”, “spray coating”, “electrospinning”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “constructing the evolved structure” which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g). (g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 61 that “computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the computer readable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an article of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects of the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks”.
The claims recite the additional element of “constructing the evolved structure” which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-16, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights