DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the claims to include a new feature that was not previously claimed. The applicant did not provide references to the specification demonstrating where support for such added limitations were described.
Thus, the specification has been evaluated by the examiner to determine if the amendment(s) to the claims introduce new matter. The originally filed specification appears to contain adequate support for the addition of “generating, by the processor, the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printed circuit board or a package” in at last ¶49 of the specification. Examiner concurs that no new matter has been introduced by way of the amendments to the present claims.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth objections for claims 1, 10, 13, and 16.
The amendments to the claims sufficiently address the objections and accordingly the objections to claims 1, 10, and 16 have been withdrawn. Claim 13 has been cancelled and renders the previous objection moot.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The applicant has amended claim 16 to address the objections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The amendments do not resolve the outstanding issues and introduce additional issues as set forth in the rejection of this action. “the retrieved information” now lacks antecedent basis and “retrieve” should instead recited “retrieved”. Suggestions on revisions for claimed limitations are provided herein. The claim(s) remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended the independent claims in response to the rejection set forth in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and argues that the claims, as amended, are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The applicant particularly amends the independent claims to recite “generating, by the processor, the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printer circuit board or a package”, in addition to other features.
The applicant argues that the claims are not properly considered because the various operations claimed are performed by a processor, which is allegedly different from a mental process.
A processor, as recited in the claims, is a generic computing component recited at a high level of generality. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the human mind, or those using assistive aids, wherein assistive aids may include computers. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
“Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Accordingly, the claim of the present application is using a generic processor to perform a task (a design of improved matching circuits) that can practically be done in the human mind or using assistive aids. For example, the claims recite a series of steps which are easily conceivable by the human mind such as “identifying”, “dividing”, “determining”, “combining”, “generating”, “changing”, etc. Such processes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, include variations of evaluations and judgements of data to derive conclusions which can be presented by using assistive aids such as pen and paper. There are no limitations of the claim which prohibit such tasks from being performed in the human mind or in such a way that is beyond human capacity. Stating that a processor is used to perform the process is the mere reliance on a generic computer as a tool to execute the functionality and is not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim is directed toward the optimal design of an ideal matching circuit and uses a processor to automate the process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further states:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). “
Applicant further argues that the claimed combination set forth in the claims includes a generation feature, by the processor to produce an ideal matching circuit represented in data. The applicant asserts that the inclusion of such feature is significantly more than a calculation result which allegedly shows significant improvement in the semiconductor industry.
This argument is, respectfully, not convincing. There are no limitations in the claim which prohibit such a generation of an ideal matching circuit represented in data from being performed practically in the human mind. For example, a human being can evaluate the ideal matching circuit derived as part of the design process and draw conclusions and judgements regarding data representations to include information for fabricating the circuit in a fabrication process. A human being is more than capable of drawing such conclusions and producing pertinent information related to the fabrication process. The “generating” and “represented in data” limitation does not clearly distinguish what is beyond human capacity because a human being can make a list of considerations for the manufacturing process and present such data on a piece of paper. Data/information is still just data/information whether it is derived in the human mind or automatically by the processor. The data is not recited in the claim as being used in the manufacturing process in any sort of inventive way that would otherwise integrate the exception(s) into a practical application- the information/data is simply produced for an intended use, wherein the intended use is never claimed to be performed in any sort of meaningful capacity. Rather, what is claimed is simply the idea of an outcome without (a) the recitation of how the outcome is achieved or (b) any sort of particular solution for a problem. There is no clear improvement to the semiconductor industry because the claim encompasses an improvement of a design process using a processor to automate the process. The improvement is to the mental process itself (the design) and not the improvement to the semiconductor industry. The improvement cannot be provided by the judicial exception and must be provided by the additional elements. The additional elements of the claim do not go beyond what has been found by the courts to not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more, as set forth in this action.
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the update rejection of this office action.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the independent claims to incorporate matter found allowable as described in the previous action for dependent claims 2, 13, and 18.
The integration of the allowable matter into the independent claims renders the independent claims allowable over the prior art. By incorporation of such limitations, the respective dependent claims of the allowable claims are likewise found allowable over the prior art. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have accordingly been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 16 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.
The claim 16 has been amended in response to a previous rejection under 112(b) but further introduces a lack of clarity in the limitation “preprocess the retrieved information stored in a database connected to the processor and preprocess the retrieve information to generate component information”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis (“the retrieved information”- wherein retrieved information is not disclosed prior to such recitation), is redundant (“preprocess”… “and preprocess”- wherein it appears the information is pre-processed twice, which does not make sense), and grammatically incorrect (“retrieve” instead of “retrieved”). Examiner suggests revising the claim again to remedy the issues such that it is abundantly clear what is being claimed. Examiner’s suggested revision: “retrieve information stored in a database connected to the processor and preprocess the retrieved information to generate component information”.
Claims 17 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, 6-12, 15-17, 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; 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.
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.
and generating, …, the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printed circuit board or a package; which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement to produce data pertinent to the fabrication process of the ideal matching circuit on a pcb or package. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by making judgements as to relevant data to write down on a piece of paper using a pen that describes the fabrication of such circuit. 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 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.
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
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))); and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) 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, as given in the exemplary scenarios of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;). 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)) as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process 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 (processor) 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:
parsing 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, 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.
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.
and generating, …,the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printed circuit board or a package; which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement to produce data pertinent to the fabrication process of the ideal matching circuit on a pcb or package. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by making judgements as to relevant data to write down on a piece of paper using a pen that describes the fabrication of such circuit. 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 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.
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.
by the processor- 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.
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 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)- “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”). 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.
preprocess the retrieved information stored in a database connected to the processor and preprocess the retrieve 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 generated component information for electrical components connected to the section and the generated characteristic impedance value; 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.
determine 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, 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, 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 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
generating, …, the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printed circuit board or a package; which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement to produce data pertinent to the fabrication process of the ideal matching circuit on a pcb or package. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by making judgements as to relevant data to write down on a piece of paper using a pen that describes the fabrication of such circuit. 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 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 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, 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. 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.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
by the processor- 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.
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))) 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: Additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 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:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process 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 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 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 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, as set forth in this action. The independent claims are presently allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art has been identified as Li (Li, K., “Impedance Matching Optimization Based on MATLAB”, May 2013, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Thesis).
Li discloses:
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; ((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."); ((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, ((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; ((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."). ((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; ((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 ((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."). ((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:"). ((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 ((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.")
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).
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).
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 following features:
[[…]] and generating, by the processor, the ideal matching circuit represented in data, the ideal matching circuit represented in data including information for fabricating the ideal matching circuit on a printed circuit board or a package;
[[…]] 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.)
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 10 and 16, which have been determined to be allowable over the prior art for the same rationale. The respective dependent claims of the independent claims incorporate the features which distinguish the present invention from the prior art and are therefore also allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
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