DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3-5, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are presented for examination.
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
Applicant has amended the claims but not provided specific citations to the originally filed disclosure demonstrating support for the amended matter.
The originally filed disclosure has been evaluated by the Examiner to determine if the applicant reasonably had possession of the claimed matter at the time of filing. The amendments to the claims appear to be sufficiently described in the specification and the originally filed claims such that it is apparent to the examiner that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. No new matter appears to have been introduced by way of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended claim 9 in response to the previously set forth claim objection.
The amendment is satisfactory and the objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and submits that the claims no longer invoke claim interpretation.
The claim noted previously has been amended such that it no longer invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and is being read per the plain language of the claim.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant has cancelled claim 4 in response to the rejection previously set forth under 112(b) for being indefinite, which renders the rejection moot.
The rejection is no longer applicable.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and argues that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended recite various operations being performed by a processor such that the claimed combination is directed to a method performed by a processor for automated design of improved matching circuits between components and submits that this is different than a mental process.
Examiner disagrees. 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. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The claims, as amended, recite the steps of the method being performed by a processor which is understood to be a generic computing component recited a high level of generality. The inclusion of such a limitation does not distinguish the claim beyond the recitation of steps which can be performed mentally (or using assistive physical aids such as pen and paper) except for the recitation of a generic processor as tool to execute the steps of the mental process.
Applicant further argues that the claimed combination of limitations demonstrates a practical application and shows significant technology improvement in the semiconductor industry which would allegedly provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Examiner disagrees. In addition to the claims reciting abstract ideas, as stated in this action, the claims do recite additional elements. However, these elements, as identified and evaluated independently and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. An improvement to the semiconductor industry is not demonstrated in the claims. Rather, an improvement to the steps which can be construed as mental process is presented in the claims in conjunction with additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the claim or provide an inventive concept. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. The courts have found that limitations identified as merely reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent with the judicial exception, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. When viewed as an ordered combination, the claims do not appear to recite additional elements that interact in an inventive way which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application but rather the additional elements appear to be the recitation of generic computer functionality in conjunction with the judicial exception, wherein the claims are linked to a particular field of use.
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-20, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered..
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretations of the input circuit and the matching circuit are inconsistent with the claimed invention and the rejection as it stands cannot be sustained.
However, the amendments to the claim modified the scope of the claimed invention, particularly with regard to the section of the input circuit. By amending the claim such that the section is divided into a first and second portion based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit, the Examiner’s interpretation of the section has accordingly changed. With this new interpretation in light of the amendments which clarify the meaning of the claimed elements as well as the interrelationships between the claimed elements, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth in view Li in view of Peterson. The new grounds of rejection relies on a reference previously applied; however the mappings of the limitations now refer to alternative sections of the reference. Li does in fact disclose a matching network within an input circuit corresponding to the input impedance of an 80 meter dipole antenna, wherein the impedance matching problem is demonstrated by an exemplary circuit containing the matching network and noted to apply to antenna impedance matching applications per the feed of the antenna. (See at least Li Pages 2 57).
Applicant further argues that Li is different from the claimed invention because Li only explains the types of impedance values that can be obtained but does not disclose or suggest dividing an input circuit and combining circuits that match the respective portions to form a single matching circuit.
While the applicant argues that Li does not disclose the dividing of an input circuit, this feature is not specifically claimed. What is claimed is “dividing…the section into a first and second portion”, wherein a section is not so particularly limited to its meaning by the claim language. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a section of the input circuit is being read as the input impedance. The input impedance is divided into two parts, per Li, particularly into its real and imaginary components based on a limited frequency band and based on actual measured values from the antenna. Li further goes on to disclose finding the optimal circuit elements for a real portion and an imaginary portion of the impedance, thereby demonstrating that partial matching circuits for each portion are determined. Ultimately, Li discloses evaluating the combined elements of the topologies to determine an optimal solution, thereby indicating that the partial matching circuits are combined. Accordingly, because the amendment necessitated a new grounds of rejection, the arguments are considered moot and claims 1, 10, and 16 remain rejected.
Applicant further argues that Li’s teachings of a given load impedance as being greater than a source impedance is different from determining a compatibility of an ideal matching circuit to a real matching circuit. Applicant further argues that the remaining features of Claim 2 are not sufficiently disclosed by the prior art of record.
The argument has been considered and is persuasive. The rejections of claims 2, 6, 13, and 18 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A method for automated designing an impedance matching circuit” which lacks grammatical correctness and should instead recite “A method for automated designing of an impedance matching circuit”, or any alternative of that nature.
Claim 10 recites “An electronic device for automated designing an impedance matching circuit” which lacks grammatical correctness and should instead recite “An electronic device for automated designing of an impedance matching circuit”, or the like.
Claim 10 recites “a processor configured to execute the impedance matching program stores in the storage device to perform: parse a user input” which should instead read “a processor configured to execute the impedance matching program stores in the storage device to perform: parsing a user input”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the processor further configured to” which should instead recite “wherein the processor is further configured to”.
Claim 16 recites “A computer program product for automated designing an impedance matching circuit” which should instead read “A computer program product for automated designing of an impedance matching circuit”, or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “retrieve information stored in the database”, wherein “the database” lacks antecedent basis within the claim.
Claim 16 likewise recites “the component information about electrical components” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. While the claim does recite “preprocess the received information to generate component information”, the component information is not described as being pertinent to electrical components.
Claim 16 recites “preprocess the received information” which lacks antecedent basis because only information that has been retrieved is introduced within the claim. Examiner recommends revising claim language to instead recite “preprocess the retrieved information” so that there is no ambiguity as to which information is being claimed.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 16 and are rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-2, 6-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are then evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
identifying, … and based on a user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a user input to make a judgement as to a section of an input circuit to further evaluate so as to determine a characteristic impedance values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
dividing,…, the section into a first portion and a second portion, based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit;. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating the section of the circuit so as to make a judgement of the center of an area including a real matching circuit to determine how to divide the section into two corresponding portions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the circuit sections on paper according to the judgment of the center of an area. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and preprocessing the retrieved information to generate component information; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing retrieved information and making evaluations about the information contained within the data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by evaluating the information and writing down corresponding component information pertinent to the retrieved information. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining, …, a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making judgement and evaluation of the component information and the characteristic impedance value so as to determine a first partial matching circuit and a second partial matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
combining,…, the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an evaluation of two partial matching circuits to derive a combined ideal matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the two partial matching circuits on paper into a connected sequence of circuits. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
by the processor- (multiple recitations throughout the claim) This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely invokes the use of a processor as a tool to perform the judicial exception and the processor is recited at a high level of generality as a generic computing component.
retrieving, by the processor, information stored in the database – This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. Further, the limitation includes “by the processor” which is identified Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated above
to be fabricated – This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular field of use of circuit fabrication.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
retrieving, by the processor, information stored in the database – This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the additional element encompasses electronic record keeping and retrieving information in memory. These functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claims.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 and its dependent claims 11, 12, 13, and 15 are directed to an electronic device which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
parse a user input, the user input including the input circuit - The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and analyzing to make a judgement as to separating the user input comprising the input circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by observing the information provided as a user input . Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying, based on the user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a user input to make a judgement as to a section of an input circuit to further evaluate so as to determine a characteristic impedance values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
dividing the section into a first portion and a second portion, based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating the section of the circuit so as to make a judgement of the center of an area including a real matching circuit to determine how to divide the section into two corresponding portions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the circuit sections on paper according to the judgment of the center of an area. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
preprocessing the retrieved information to generate component information, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing retrieved information and making evaluations about the information contained within the data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by evaluating the information and writing down corresponding component information pertinent to the retrieved information. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value, and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making judgement and evaluation of the component information and the characteristic impedance value so as to determine a first partial matching circuit and a second partial matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
combining the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an evaluation of two partial matching circuits to derive a combined ideal matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the two partial matching circuits on paper into a connected sequence of circuits. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a database storing information about electrical components; This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation describes the judicial application being executed in a computing environment. The limitation is further identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular field of use of electrical components
a storage device storing an impedance matching program comprising a set of computer-readable instructions; and This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely invokes the use of computers as a tool to perform the judicial exception
a processor configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to perform This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely invokes the use of a processor as a tool to perform the judicial exception and the processor is recited at a high level of generality as a generic computing component.
retrieving the information stored in the database and - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
to be fabricated – This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular field of use of circuit fabrication.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
retrieving the information stored in the database– This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the additional element encompasses electronic record keeping and retrieving information in memory. These functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claims.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16:
Step 1: Claim 16 and its dependent claims 17, 18 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
identify, based on a user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a user input to make a judgement as to a section of an input circuit to further evaluate so as to determine a characteristic impedance values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
divide the section into a first portion and a second portion, based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing and evaluating the section of the circuit so as to make a judgement of the center of an area including a real matching circuit to determine how to divide the section into two corresponding portions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the circuit sections on paper according to the judgment of the center of an area. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and preprocess the received information to generate component information; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing retrieved information and making evaluations about the information contained within the data. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by evaluating the information and writing down corresponding component information pertinent to the retrieved information. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making judgement and evaluation of the component information and the characteristic impedance value so as to determine a first partial matching circuit and a second partial matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
combine the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an evaluation of two partial matching circuits to derive a combined ideal matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing the two partial matching circuits on paper into a connected sequence of circuits. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
retrieve information stored in the database - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
to be fabricated – This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular field of use of circuit fabrication.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
retrieve information stored in the database– This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the additional element encompasses electronic record keeping and retrieving information in memory. These functions have been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claims.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations: determining,…, a compatibility of the ideal matching circuit to the real matching circuit; which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation between an ideal matching circuit and a real matching circuit to determine compatibility between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
upon determining, …, that the compatibility is above a threshold value and that an ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies an optimization function, determining, …, the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit as an optimization matching value indicating an optimized impedance matching between the ideal matching circuit and the real matching circuit; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a compatibility value with regard for a threshold value and evaluating an ideal matching value with regard for an optimization function. The claim limitation further entails making a judgment as to an ideal matching value as an optimization matching value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites mathematical relationships of comparing values, the claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
upon determining, …, that the compatibility is above the threshold value and that the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit does not satisfy the optimization function, changing, …, the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit and determining, …, whether the changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies the optimization function; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a compatibility value with regard for a threshold value and evaluating an ideal matching value with regard for the optimization function. The claim limitation further entails making a judgment as to how to modify the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit. And further the claim limitation entails evaluating the changed matching value with regard to the optimization function. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites mathematical relationships of comparing values, the claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
upon determining, …, that the compatibility is below the threshold value, changing, …, the real matching circuit to the ideal matching circuit or removing, …, a part of the ideal matching circuit to generate a changed ideal matching circuit. , which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of the compatibility with regard for a threshold value. The claim limitation further entails making a judgement as to how to change or remove a part of the ideal matching circuit to make a changed ideal matching circuit. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by re-drawing a representation of a circuit diagram on paper so as to not incorporate an element or to modify an element accordingly. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because this claim recites mathematical relationships of comparing values, the claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation by the processor multiple times throughout the claim. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have ruled mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation applying, by the processor, the optimization matching value to the real matching circuit and simulating, by the processor, matching reliability based on variable information of the characteristic impedance value of the section. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exceptions and because the claim limitation invokes the use of generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The claim simply uses the values obtained as part of the mental process/mathematical calculations to perform a simulation, recited at a high level of generality. The courts have ruled appending the words “apply it” or equivalent to the judicial exception and including mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation calculating,…, the first partial matching circuit of the first portion and the second partial matching circuit of the second portion using an L type matching method, which can reasonably be read to entail using an L type matching method to calculate the first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation by the processor which has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim further recites wherein the first partial matching circuit includes either an L type matching circuit or a reverse L type matching circuit, and and wherein the second partial matching circuit includes either the L type matching circuit or the reverse L type matching circuit. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled that incorporating mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation wherein the ideal matching circuit includes a double L type matching circuit, a double reverse L type matching circuit, a T type matching circuit, or a pi type matching circuit. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein the user input further includes a simulation setting for determining a simulation section, and. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim further recites the generation of the characteristic impedance value of the simulation section includes simulating, by the processor, only the simulation section based on the simulation setting to generate the characteristic impedance value. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use and invoking the use of computers to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use and invoking the use of computers to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation calculate the first partial matching circuit of the first portion and the second partial matching circuit of the second portion using an L type matching method, and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing an evaluation to identify the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit using an l type matching method. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because the claim recites performing a calculation, the claim also include the abstract idea of mathematical concepts for performing mathematical calculations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 additionally recites the limitation wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to which has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and wherein the ideal matching circuit includes a double L type matching circuit, a double reverse L type matching circuit, a T type matching circuit, or a pi type matching circuit which has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to providing mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the user input further includes a simulation setting for determining a simulation section, and. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the limitation wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to simulate within the simulation section based on the simulation setting to generate the characteristic impedance value of the simulation section. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use or invoking the use of a computer to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use or invoking the use of a computer to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation determining a compatibility of the ideal matching circuit to the real matching circuit,, which can reasonably be read to entail observing and making a judgement on the compatibility between an ideal matching circuit and a real matching circuit. The claim further recites upon determining that the compatibility is above a threshold value and that an ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies an optimization function, determining the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit as an optimization matching value indicating an optimized impedance matching between the ideal matching circuit and the real matching circuit, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the satisfaction of a threshold value and the satisfaction of an optimization function in order to inform the calculation of an ideal matching value. The claim further recites upon determining that the compatibility is above the threshold value and that the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit does not satisfy the optimization function, changing the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit and determining whether the changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies the optimization function, and which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the satisfaction of an optimization function in order to make a judgement of design changes and further make an additional judgement as to if a changed value satisfies an optimization function. The claim further recites upon determining that the compatibility is below the threshold value, changing the real matching circuit to the ideal matching circuit or removing a part of the ideal matching circuit to generate a changed ideal matching circuit. which can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a compatibility with regard for a threshold value and further making a judgement as to how to modify the reach matching circuit via change or removal so as to generate an ideal matching circuit. These tasks can be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim also includes multiple recitations of mathematical concepts, for example, the evaluation of values against a threshold, the evaluation of satisfaction with respect to an optimization function are both mathematical relationships with are mathematical concepts. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation wherein the processor further configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to perform: This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the inclusion of the limitation invokes the use of computers to perform the judicial exception. The courts have ruled including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to including instructions to implement the judicial exception on a generic computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 10 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to apply the calculated optimization matching value to the real matching circuit and simulate matching reliability based on variable information of the impedance of the section. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled invoking the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception (or a generic equivalent) and using computer as a tool does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process and reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception (or a generic equivalent) are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 16 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the component information is generated by preprocessing a data sheet of the component., which can reasonably be read to entail observing a data sheet to gather information about a component. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a human can read a data sheet of the component and write down pertinent information so as to pre-process the data on the datasheet. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 16 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation determine a compatibility of the ideal matching circuit to the real matching circuit; which can reasonably be read to entail observing and making a judgement on the compatibility between an ideal matching circuit and a real matching circuit. The claim further recites upon determining that the compatibility is above a threshold value and that an ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies an optimization function, determine the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit as an optimization matching value indicating an optimized impedance matching between the ideal matching circuit and the real matching circuit; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a compatibility value with regard for a threshold value and evaluating an ideal matching value with regard for an optimization function. The claim limitation further entails making a judgment as to an ideal matching value as an optimization matching value. The claim further recites upon determining that the compatibility is above the threshold value and that the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit does not satisfy the optimization function, change the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit and determine whether the changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies the optimization function; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a compatibility value with regard for a threshold value and evaluating an ideal matching value with regard for the optimization function. The claim limitation further entails making a judgment as to how to modify the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit. And further the claim limitation entails evaluating the changed matching value with regard to the optimization function. The claim also recites upon determining that the compatibility is below the threshold value, change the real matching circuit to the ideal matching circuit or remove a part of the ideal matching circuit to generate a changed ideal matching circuit. which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation of the compatibility with regard for a threshold value. The claim limitation further entails making a judgement as to how to change or remove a part of the ideal matching circuit to make a changed ideal matching circuit. These tasks can be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim also includes multiple recitations of mathematical concepts, for example, the evaluation of values against a threshold, the evaluation of satisfaction with respect to an optimization function are both mathematical relationships with are mathematical concepts. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled invoking the use of a computer to perform an existing process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking the use of a computer to perform an existing process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 16 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to apply the optimization matching value to the real matching circuit and simulate matching reliability. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to ruled including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Li, K., “Impedance Matching Optimization Based on MATLAB”, May 2013, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Thesis), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Peterson (Peterson, Z., “Antenna Impedance Matching Calculator with Altium Designer”, May 20, 2020, resources.altium.com), hereinafter referred to as Peterson.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) A method for automated designing an impedance matching circuit for an input circuit, performed by an electronic device including a database, a storage device storing an impedance matching program comprising a set of computer-readable instructions, and a processor, the method comprising: An approach for a designer to determine an impedance matching network for the input feed of an antenna by employing MATLAB code is disclosed ((Li, Page 6, ¶2) "In this thesis, the MATLAB approach allows the designer to choose the topology of the matching network"); ((Li, Page 42, ¶3) "In this thesis, the following Impedance Matching Network Designer [21] is used for assistance purposes"); ((Li, Page 2, ¶2) " An impedance matching problem is illustrated in Figure 1-1. In this figure, is the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, or more generally, the feed"); ((Li, Page 50, ¶2) " From the former chapters we can get a rough idea of how the program works. Here is a conclusion of the main program procedure: (a) Start the program by importing the impedance file of an antenna including frequencies and corresponding impedances.")
identifying, by the processor and based on a user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value; A user provides through the MATLAB importfile function (based on user input) an antenna impedance file into the design software(by the processor) that characterizes (identifying) the input impedance of an exemplary antenna circuit with a feed (section of the input circuit), wherein the characteristic impedance value corresponding to the input impedances is generated into a matrix for storage ((Li, Page 57, ¶2-3) "The 80-meter dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is given in a text file. In the text file A15.txt, columns are separated by spaces. This file also includes other information, like the magnitude and angle of the impedance in polar form. We are only adopting the frequency, real part of impedance, and imaginary part of impedance in this case. In order to import this data file into a matrix in MATLAB, a function importfile.m is created. The MATLAB code for importfile.m can be found in Appendix C. This function reads all data from the text file, and creates a 15× 9 matrix A15 storing it. Here the frequency is in MHz, so we use the first column times 106 as the frequency data."). The input impedance is used as part of the solution for the impedance matching problem ((Li, Page 2, ¶2) "An impedance matching problem is illustrated in Figure 1-1. In this figure,Z0 is the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, or more generally, the feed. Zload is the load impedance, and Zin stands for the input impedance looking towards the load. The matching network is regarded ideal, so no power is lost. Another advantage of impedance matching is the SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio) of the whole system can be improved. Moreover, when the real part of Zload is nonzero, a matching network between Zload and Z0 can always be found.").
dividing, by the processor, the section into a first portion and a second portion, The antenna’s input impedance is given by a file as stated above, wherein the source impedance is split into its real and imaginary parts (first and second portion) ((Li, Page 58, ¶2) "From A15.txt, we can get the real part impedance vector real, and the imaginary part vector imag."). based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit; The frequency band (an area) is limited between (a center) 3.5 to 3.85 MHz for the antenna as criteria for the impedance matching optimization ((Li, Page 57, ¶1) " The frequency band we are interested in is 3.5 to 3.85 MHz. The load is an 80 meter half-wave (total length = 127.33 feet) dipole antenna made out of #10 gauge wire at a height of 100 feet over average earth ground (εr =13, σ = 0.005 S/m), whose impedance file is in Appendix A. The impedance file was generated from the antenna simulation software package GNEC [22] based on NEC-4 [22]. Impedance matching optimizers will run based on principles discussed above, and the maximum of VSWR over the frequency will be used as the criteria of bandwidth: the smaller the maximum is, the better the bandwidth we get."); ((Li, Page 57, ¶2) "The 80-meter dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is given in a text file. In the text file A15.txt, columns are separated by spaces. This file also includes other information, like the magnitude and angle of the impedance in polar form. We are only adopting the frequency, real part of impedance, and imaginary part of impedance in this case."); ((Li, Page 59, ¶2) " Here, we are trying to find the optimized values of L and C for the Pi3 network to get the widest possible frequency band matching of the antenna to a 50 Ohms transmission line. The frequency-impedance file of the 80-meter dipole antenna is given in Appendix A."). Actual measured data of the antenna is used for the load, thereby indicating that the simulation results incorporate that of a real matching circuit. ((Li, Page 75, ¶2) "Actual measured data of an 80-meter half-wave dipole antenna serves as the load, making the simulation results reliable.")
retrieving, by the processor, information stored in the database and preprocessing the retrieved information to generate component information; A function reads a file, which could be considered a simplistic database if the plain meaning of a database is employed (as an organized, digital collection of structured information), and parses the file according to spaces, wherein the data within the file characterizes the dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is stored (generated) in a matrix ((Li, Page 57, ¶2-3) "The 80-meter dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is given in a text file. In the text file A15.txt, columns are separated by spaces. This file also includes other information, like the magnitude and angle of the impedance in polar form. We are only adopting the frequency, real part of impedance, and imaginary part of impedance in this case. In order to import this data file into a matrix in MATLAB, a function importfile.m is created. The MATLAB code for importfile.m can be found in Appendix C. This function reads all data from the text file, and creates a 15× 9 matrix A15 storing it."); ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) "The frequency band given is from 3.40 MHz to 4.00 MHz, every 25 kHz. Table 3-1 gives part of the data sheet. The whole table is attached in Appendix A.")
determining, by the processor, a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value; and A circuit element (first partial matching circuit) can be derived for the real part value and another element (second partial matching circuit) can be derived for the imaginary part ((Li, Page 28, ¶4) " From the above theory, we could use one reactive element to achieve the real part value, and use another element to deal with the imaginary part resulting from the first element. One of the two elements should be in shunt with the load, and the other one should be in series with it. Therefore, we could match any two resistive values by using only two reactive elements, one in shunt and the other in series. This is an L network. In all L networks, one of the elements should be a capacitor, and the other should be an inductor."). The global optimization toolbox in MATLAB (run by the processor of the computer) is used to determine the appropriate circuitry of each element position in the chosen topology ((Li, Page 12, ¶1) " The Global Optimization ToolboxTM in MATLAB is the main numerical tool used in this thesis. This MATLAB approach allows the designer to select from several basic topologies, including the L network, the T network, the Pi network and networks with 5 or 6 element positions. Then the algorithm fills each element position with one of the following four basic lumped element circuits:") The real and imaginary values of the antenna impedance, as well as a typical characteristic impedance of 50 ohms, are obtained as antenna information associated with the matching network and these values are used as the basis for each element block in a selected topology ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) " The approach presented in this thesis allows the designer to choose from the following topologies: two types of L networks, T network and Pi network. We take the source impedance as 50 Ohms, which is a typical characteristic impedance of transmission lines. The load impedance is imported from a text file, with actual impedance data from an 80-meter half-wavelength dipole antenna. The frequency band given is from 3.40 MHz to 4.00 MHz, every 25 kHz. Table 3-1 gives part of the data sheet. The whole table is attached in Appendix A."); ((Li, Page 38, ¶1) " Then for each element block in the topology, the algorithm fills four kinds of basic circuits in it, as shown in Figure 1-5.")
combining, by the processor, the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit [[to be fabricated.]] A topology is filled in at each element position and values are optimized for the combination of elements, thereby indicating that the partial circuits are combined to yield a best matching network (as an ideal matching circuit) ((Li, Page 12, ¶1-2) " The Global Optimization ToolboxTM in MATLAB is the main numerical tool used in this thesis. This MATLAB approach allows the designer to select from several basic topologies, including the L network, the T network, the Pi network and networks with 5 or 6 element positions. Then the algorithm fills each element position with one of the following four basic lumped element circuits: The optimization solver is set up with a start point containing the initial guess of all elements, and an objective function calculating the maximum of the VSWR over the desired frequency band. With each filled topology, the minimum of the objective function is found and stored. After completing all filling possibilities, the minimums are compared to find the smallest one, which is presented with all element values and basic circuit configurations. This result would be the best matching network under the selected topology.")
Li does not explicitly disclose designing the circuit with the intent of fabrication; however, Peterson discloses designing an ideal matching circuit to be fabricated. as a built PCB ((Peterson, ¶1) "Building a PCB with strong wireless communication capabilities requires impedance matching your antenna to its receiver/transceiver using one of many termination schemes, especially if you opt to print your own antenna on your PCB. ")
Li and Peterson are both analogous art to the claimed invention because they both pertain to the same field of endeavor of impedance matching optimization techniques and tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have combined the teachings of the references because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one having ordinary skill to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Li discloses a methodology for automatically deriving the optimal circuit designs for impedance matching. Peterson suggests that impedance matching is required in order to build a PCB with strong wireless communication capabilities. By leveraging the automated matching disclosed by Li into the workflow for producing a PCB as disclosed by Peterson, one would arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Li further discloses wherein the determination of the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit comprises:
calculating, by the processor, the first partial matching circuit of the first portion and the second partial matching circuit of the second portion using an L type matching method, L network impedance matching code is given in Appendix B. Two or more series-connected L network can be used for impedance matching ((Li, Page 35, ¶2) " Two or more series-connected L networks can be used for broadband impedance matching, as shown in Figure 3-8. "). Two L networks can likewise be placed back to back as a Pi network ((Li, Page 33, ¶1) " When two L networks are placed back-to-back, with their series legs connected, a Pi network is constructed, as shown in Figure 3-6. "). Values can be calculated for such topologies, as demonstrated in the code of Appendix C.
wherein the first partial matching circuit includes either an L type matching circuit or a reverse L type matching circuit, and ((Li, Page 34, ¶1) " In both T network design and Pi network design using the L network approach, multiple matching designs are possible. The specific final choice of the possible realizations depend on application factors. "); (See also Figure 3-7)
wherein the second partial matching circuit includes either the L type matching circuit or the reverse L type matching circuit. ((Li, Page 34, ¶1) " In both T network design and Pi network design using the L network approach, multiple matching designs are possible. The specific final choice of the possible realizations depend on application factors. "); (See also Figure 3-7)
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the ideal matching circuit includes a double L type matching circuit, a double reverse L type matching circuit, a T type matching circuit, or a pi type matching circuit. ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) "The approach presented in this thesis allows the designer to choose from the following topologies: two types of L networks, T network and Pi network"). ((Li, Page 34, ¶1) "In both T network design and Pi network design using the L network approach, multiple matching designs are possible. The specific final choice of the possible realizations depend on application factors.")
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses wherein the user input further includes a simulation setting for determining a simulation section, and the generation of the characteristic impedance value of the simulation section includes simulating, by the processor, only the simulation section based on the simulation setting to generate the characteristic impedance value. The antenna impedance file (user input as described previously) was generated by an antenna simulation software package with consideration to a limited band of frequencies (generating characteristic impedance values for only the specified frequency range). The antenna file contains the corresponding frequency used in the simulation (simulation setting) that was used to determine behavior at a given frequency (simulation section). ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) " We take the source impedance as 50 Ohms, which is a typical characteristic impedance of transmission lines. The load impedance is imported from a text file, with actual impedance data from an 80-meter half-wavelength dipole antenna. The frequency band given is from 3.40 MHz to 4.00 MHz, every 25 kHz. Table 3-1 gives part of the data sheet. The whole table is attached in Appendix A."); ((Li, Page 57, ¶1) "The frequency band we are interested in is 3.5 to 3.85 MHz. The load is an 80 meter half-wave (total length = 127.33 feet) dipole antenna made out of #10 gauge wire at a height of 100 feet over average earth ground (εr =13, σ = 0.005 S/m), whose impedance file is in Appendix A. The impedance file was generated from the antenna simulation software package GNEC [22] based on NEC-4 [22]. Impedance matching optimizers will run based on principles discussed above, and the maximum of VSWR over the frequency will be used as the criteria of bandwidth: the smaller the maximum is, the better the bandwidth we get.")
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses An electronic device for automated designing an impedance matching circuit for an input circuit, the electronic device comprising: ((Li, Page 14, ¶1) "It only takes several minutes even for the six-element topology to get the optimization result on a computer with Intel Core i5 processor.")
a database storing information about electrical components; ((Li, Page 57, ¶2) "The 80-meter dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is given in a text file.")
a storage device storing an impedance matching program comprising a set of computer-readable instructions; and ((Li, Page 14, ¶1) "It only takes several minutes even for the six-element topology to get the optimization result on a computer with Intel Core i5 processor."); See also appendices B-F for code as an impedance matching program.
a processor configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to perform: ((Li, Page 14, ¶1) "It only takes several minutes even for the six-element topology to get the optimization result on a computer with Intel Core i5 processor."); See also appendices B-F for code as an impedance matching program.
parse a user input, the user input including the input circuit, ((Li, Page 57, ¶3) "In order to import this data file into a matrix in MATLAB, a function importfile.m is created. The MATLAB code for importfile.m can be found in Appendix C. This function reads all data from the text file, and creates a 15× 9 matrix A15 storing it. Here the frequency is in MHz, so we use the first column times 106 as the frequency data.")
The remaining limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale: identifying, based on the user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value,
dividing the section into a first portion and a second portion, based on a center of
an area including a real matching circuit,
retrieving the information stored in the database and preprocessing the retrieved information to generate component information,
determining a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value, and
combining the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit to be fabricated.
For brevity, the rejection is not being restated. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to calculate the first partial matching circuit of the first portion and the second partial matching circuit of the second portion using an L type matching method, and L network impedance matching code is given in Appendix B. Two or more series-connected L network can be used for impedance matching ((Li, Page 35, ¶2) " Two or more series-connected L networks can be used for broadband impedance matching, as shown in Figure 3-8. "). Two L networks can likewise be placed back to back as a Pi network ((Li, Page 33, ¶1) " When two L networks are placed back-to-back, with their series legs connected, a Pi network is constructed, as shown in Figure 3-6. "). Values can be calculated for such topologies, as demonstrated in the code of Appendix C.
wherein the ideal matching circuit includes a double L type matching circuit, a double reverse L type matching circuit, a T type matching circuit, or a pi type matching circuit. ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) "The approach presented in this thesis allows the designer to choose from the following topologies: two types of L networks, T network and Pi network"). ((Li, Page 34, ¶1) "In both T network design and Pi network design using the L network approach, multiple matching designs are possible. The specific final choice of the possible realizations depend on application factors.")
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses wherein the user input further includes a simulation setting for determining a simulation section, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to simulate within the simulation section based on the simulation setting to generate the characteristic impedance value of the simulation section. The antenna impedance file (user input as described previously) was generated by an antenna simulation software package with consideration to a limited band of frequencies (generating characteristic impedance values for only the specified frequency range). The antenna file contains the corresponding frequency used in the simulation (simulation setting) that was used to determine behavior at a given frequency (simulation section). ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) " We take the source impedance as 50 Ohms, which is a typical characteristic impedance of transmission lines. The load impedance is imported from a text file, with actual impedance data from an 80-meter half-wavelength dipole antenna. The frequency band given is from 3.40 MHz to 4.00 MHz, every 25 kHz. Table 3-1 gives part of the data sheet. The whole table is attached in Appendix A."); ((Li, Page 57, ¶1) "The frequency band we are interested in is 3.5 to 3.85 MHz. The load is an 80 meter half-wave (total length = 127.33 feet) dipole antenna made out of #10 gauge wire at a height of 100 feet over average earth ground (εr =13, σ = 0.005 S/m), whose impedance file is in Appendix A. The impedance file was generated from the antenna simulation software package GNEC [22] based on NEC-4 [22]. Impedance matching optimizers will run based on principles discussed above, and the maximum of VSWR over the frequency will be used as the criteria of bandwidth: the smaller the maximum is, the better the bandwidth we get.")
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the impedance matching program stored in the storage device to apply the calculated optimization matching value to the real matching circuit and simulate matching reliability based on variable information of the impedance of the section. The matching network results (calculated optimization matching value) are applied to the Impedance Matching Network Designer that considers the load impedance, wherein the load impedance was previously described as corresponding to the real matching circuit from direct measurements (simulation based on variable information of the impedance of the section) ((Li, Page 44, ¶2) " We put all knowns into the Impedance Matching Network Designer discussed in section 4.1."); ((Li, Page 47, ¶1) " When checking the result with the Impedance Matching Network Designer, it gives L it gives L = 2151nH, C = 430.1pF, which is fairly close with the MATLAB result. Figure 4-7 shows the matching result in Smith Chart. The matching path is exactly the same with that in Figure 4-6. The reason why L and C values are different is the frequency difference."); ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) " The load impedance is imported from a text file, with actual impedance data from an 80-meter half-wavelength dipole antenna."); ((Li, Page 2, ¶3- Page 3, ¶1) " Impedance matching at a single frequency is fairly easy. The found networks usually work well over a 5% or less bandwidth. However, matching a load over a wider band of frequencies is desired more often. Design becomes much more difficult as desired bandwidth increases. Some matching networks require an adjustment part to match variable load impedance as frequency changes."). The results between the Impedance Matching Network Designer and the impedance matching MATLAB code are demonstrated via Smith charts, wherein the Smith charts are compared to determine the reliability of the matching network results obtained from the impedance matching MATLAB code ((Li, Page 44, ¶2-3) " In this thesis, the Smith Chart is used to verify the results from the impedance matching calculators, and sometimes is also used to test the MATLAB result. All these tests are only performed at single frequency. The verification method will be illustrated in the following example. The source impedance is 50 Ohms, which is also regarded as the characteristic impedance. To make the process easier, we take the load impedance as 100 Ohms. The frequency is set at 300 MHz. We want to find a proper matching L network.").
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses A computer program product for automated designing an impedance matching circuit for an input circuit, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: Code is provided for an impedance matching program in Appendices B-F. The code is described as being run on a computer with a processor in order to obtain results ((Li, Page 14, ¶1) "Thus much time is saved and more simulation times are feasible. It only takes several minutes even for the six-element topology to get the optimization result on a computer with Intel Core i5 processor.")
The remaining limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale: identify, based on a user input, a section of the input circuit for matching an impedance to generate a characteristic impedance value;
divide the section into a first portion and a second portion, based on a center of an area including a real matching circuit;
retrieve information stored in the database and preprocess the received information to generate component information;
determine a first partial matching circuit of the first portion and a second partial matching circuit of the second portion using the component information about electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value; and
combine the first partial matching circuit and the second partial matching circuit to generate an ideal matching circuit to be fabricated.
For brevity, the rejection is not being restated. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Li further discloses wherein the component information is generated by preprocessing a data sheet of the component. A function reads a file characterizing the dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data and stores the information in a matrix ((Li, Page 57, ¶2-3) "The 80-meter dipole antenna’s impedance and frequency data is given in a text file. In the text file A15.txt, columns are separated by spaces. This file also includes other information, like the magnitude and angle of the impedance in polar form. We are only adopting the frequency, real part of impedance, and imaginary part of impedance in this case. In order to import this data file into a matrix in MATLAB, a function importfile.m is created. The MATLAB code for importfile.m can be found in Appendix C. This function reads all data from the text file, and creates a 15× 9 matrix A15 storing it."); ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) "The frequency band given is from 3.40 MHz to 4.00 MHz, every 25 kHz. Table 3-1 gives part of the data sheet. The whole table is attached in Appendix A.")
Regarding claim 20, Li further discloses wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to apply the optimization matching value to the real matching circuit and simulate matching reliability. The matching network results (calculated optimization matching value) are applied to the Impedance Matching Network Designer that considers the load impedance, wherein the load impedance was previously described as corresponding to the real matching circuit from direct measurements (simulation based on variable information of the impedance of the section) ((Li, Page 44, ¶2) " We put all knowns into the Impedance Matching Network Designer discussed in section 4.1."); ((Li, Page 47, ¶1) " When checking the result with the Impedance Matching Network Designer, it gives L it gives L = 2151nH, C = 430.1pF, which is fairly close with the MATLAB result. Figure 4-7 shows the matching result in Smith Chart. The matching path is exactly the same with that in Figure 4-6. The reason why L and C values are different is the frequency difference."); ((Li, Page 37, ¶1) " The load impedance is imported from a text file, with actual impedance data from an 80-meter half-wavelength dipole antenna."); ((Li, Page 2, ¶3- Page 3, ¶1) " Impedance matching at a single frequency is fairly easy. The found networks usually work well over a 5% or less bandwidth. However, matching a load over a wider band of frequencies is desired more often. Design becomes much more difficult as desired bandwidth increases. Some matching networks require an adjustment part to match variable load impedance as frequency changes."). The results between the Impedance Matching Network Designer and the impedance matching MATLAB code are demonstrated via Smith charts, wherein the Smith charts are compared to determine the reliability of the matching network results obtained from the impedance matching MATLAB code ((Li, Page 44, ¶2-3) " In this thesis, the Smith Chart is used to verify the results from the impedance matching calculators, and sometimes is also used to test the MATLAB result. All these tests are only performed at single frequency. The verification method will be illustrated in the following example. The source impedance is 50 Ohms, which is also regarded as the characteristic impedance. To make the process easier, we take the load impedance as 100 Ohms. The frequency is set at 300 MHz. We want to find a proper matching L network.").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art has been identified as Li, as given in the rejection of the independent claims above. Li discloses per Claim 2 determining, by the processor, a compatibility of the ideal matching circuit to the real matching circuit; by determining the VSWR for the proposed (ideal) matching circuit solutions, wherein a VSWR is understood to measure the efficiency of power transfer between a source and a load of a real antenna ( See at least Li, Appendix D showing the VSWR being calculated for all possible solutions). Li further discloses upon determining, by the processor, that the compatibility is above a threshold value and that an ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies an optimization function, determining, by the processor, the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit as an optimization matching value indicating an optimized impedance matching between the ideal matching circuit and the real matching circuit; by describing that the maximum value of the VSWR (as a VSWR subject to a maximum function as a thresholding tool) is stored for later comparison and subsequently subjected to an objective function to identify the minimum of the maximums, and according to this determination, the final result of ideal L and C values in an impedance matching circuit are given ((Li, Page 71, ¶1) "With every set of values, the VSWR is calculated over the frequency, and the maximum VSWR is stored. After calculation, all these maximums are compared, and the minimum of them is picked along with corresponding L and C values. This is taken as the final result."). Li further discloses selecting and displaying, via code, the circuit element values with the corresponding minimized maximum VSWR as the final design solution (See at least code snippet provided in Li Page 87). Li additionally discloses upon determining, by the processor, that the compatibility is above the threshold value and that the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit does not satisfy the optimization function, in the same manner as described above.
However, Li does not disclose or suggest the features: changing, by the processor, the ideal matching value of the ideal matching circuit to a changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit and determining, by the processor, whether the changed matching value of the ideal matching circuit satisfies the optimization function; and . Instead, Li relies upon determining a plurality of designs in batch calculations and comparing the results of those batch calculations to determine the ideal matching values for the circuit. Accordingly, the ideal matching values of the ideal matching circuit are not changed, rather the designs with alternative ideal values are merely discarded from consideration as the optimal design.
Li further fails to disclose the features: upon determining, by the processor, that the compatibility is below the threshold value, changing, by the processor, the real matching circuit to the ideal matching circuit or removing, by the processor, a part of the ideal matching circuit to generate a changed ideal matching circuit. While Li does contemplate the VSWR with regard for an acceptable threshold as given above, Li does not contemplate evaluating the VSWR so as to inform a change of the real matching circuit to the ideal matching circuit, nor does Li contemplate removing a part of the ideal matching circuit to generate a changed ideal matching circuit.
No prior art has been identified to obviously cure the deficiencies of Li.
These features are substantially duplicated in dependent claims 13 and 18, which have been determined to be allowable over the prior art for the same rationale. Because claim 6 incorporates the limitations of claim 2, claim 6 would likewise be allowable over the prior art.
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 EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights