DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Responsive to the communication dated 7/28/2022. Claims 1 – 13, 15, 16 are presented for examination. Priority The ADS dated 7/28/2022 claims priority to provisional application 63/226358 dated 7/28/2021. Information Disclosure Statement No IDS provided. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claims recite a method involving a variety of step, however, these steps are not illustrated in the drawings. Each step of the method must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the specification dated 7/28/2022 has 126 words, 10 lines and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted. Claim Objections The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.75 which requires that if there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals. In instant claims omit claim number 14. The claims are numbered 1 – 13, 15, and 16. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 1. STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites “a method.” STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim recites: “… for simulating interaction between a propagating field and one or more occluding bodies in a volume, wherein the method comprises: Using a processor, constructing a three-dimensional grid acceleration structure that comprises a plurality of cells, the volume containing a plurality of two-dimensional triangles that intersects or reside in one or more of the plurality of cells. Using a processor, iterating through a plurality of rays and tracing each of the plurality of rays to approximate the propagating field, wherein the tracing of each of the plurality of rays comprises determining a starting point and stepping through each cell of the plurality of cells through which the ray intersects or travels. Using the processor, determining and accounting for all interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies, the determining all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising: Performing ray-triangle intersection for all triangles of the plurality of triangles intersecting or residing in cells occupied by the one or more occluding bodies, and Measuring distance between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies, and The accounting all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising: Adding additional rays of the plurality of rays as reflections, transmissions, and diffractions of the approximated propagating field .” S imulation is the use of mathematical models (i.e., equations) to calculate a mathematical output that numerically characterizes systems and are performed using algorithms which are sequences and iterations of related mathematical calculations. An acceleration structure is fundamentally a mathematical construct or, more accurately an abstract data structure which is a mathematical framework that represents spatial relationships in an X,Y,Z coordinate system that facilitates calculations related to 3D geometry. In the context of acceleration structures a “ray” used in the calculations are treated as vectors (or more specifically, mathematical representations of vectors) bec ause in ray-tracing calculations, the ray is not simply a line but is a mathematical entity defined using vector mathematics and operations such as intersection tests performed using vector mathematics such as dot product. Indeed, the claims themselves make this clear because, for example, claim 2 recites the box-in-test and claim 3 further clarifies the use of the dot product. Measuring virtual ray-triangle intersections cannot be done physically. It necessarily must be performed by performing specific vector algebra calculations. Because the operation relies entirely on applying mathematical formulas, it is fundamentally a mathematical operation. Adding additional rays simply indicates to add additional virtual representations (rays/vectors) into the scenario being calculated. MEPE 2106.04(a)(2) states: “… it is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols …” “… a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in word or using mathematical symbols …” “… a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable i nterpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the mathematical concepts grouping … there is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation … for example, a step of “ determining ” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “ performing ” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations …” The specification makes clear that the operations recited in claim 1 are mathematical ones. Additionally, the specification cites other mathematical methods such as Monte Carlo Ray Tracing (MCRT), Stochastic Ray tracing, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Method of Moments (MoM), Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD), Standard Ray Tracing (SRT), and Dominant Path Model for calculating propagating field interactions and indicates that these mathematical methods are slow. The Applicant then indicates that the claimed invention provides a “strategy for accelerated ray tracing”. Accordingly, the specification indicates that the proposed improvement is a mathematical strategy for an accelerated way of calculating the path of mathematical representation of vectors through a coordinate system (i.e., ray tracing). Therefore, the Office finds that the claim is directed towards a mathematical abstract idea. STEP 2A PRONG TWO While the claim recites, in the preamble, “… for simulating interactions between a propagating field and one or more occluding bodies in a volume” this merely links the mathematical calculations generally to a field of use known as “propagating fields”. Generally linking the use of an abstract mathematical group to a field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e). While the claim recites “using a processor” the use of a generally recited computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the Office finds that the claim does not recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. STEP 2B Other than generally linking the mathematical calculation to the general scientific field of “propagating fields” and reciting that the calculations are perform “using a processor” the claim only recites elements which are the mathematical abstract idea. Generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and generally reciting to use a computer is not indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim when considered as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 2 recites “ wherein the constructing of the three-dimensional grid acceleration structure uses a planar step process comprising a box-in-triangle test ”. As outlined above, an acceleration structure is fundamentally a mathematical construct or, more accurately an abstract data structure which is a mathematical framework that represents spatial relationships in an X,Y,Z coordinate system that facilitates calculations related to 3D geometry. The claimed box-in-triangle test is entirely a mathematical operation. It uses fundamental mathematical principles – primarily linear algebra and vector mathematics to arrive at a true/false answer of whether there is an overlap between objects represented in the X.Y,Z coordinate system. For example, the most common box-in-triangle test is based on Separating Axis Theorem (SAT). “a planar step” is interpreted to be a reference to a plane equation test calculation which uses dot products and normal vector to determine if all point of a bounding box lie entirely on one side of a plane containing a triangle. This is also a mathematical calculation. Accordingly, under STEP 2A PRONG ONE, the claim recites additional mathematical abstract idea. Under STEP 2A PRONG TWO, the claim does not recites any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim only recites mathematical elements. Under STEP 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more because, again, the claim only recites mathematical elements. Claim 3 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test comprises: using the processor, determining a plane for each triangle, wherein the plane for each triangle is represented by: where N is a vector normal to the plane of the respective triangle, A is a point of interest on the plane of the respective triangle, and x, y, and z are the x-, y-, and z-coordinates, respectively, of another point on the plane of the respective triangle, and wherein rearranging the plane of the respective triangle in terms of dot-products shows that for any point (x, y, z) on the plane of the respective triangle the dot product of that point with the normal vector will be equal to the dot product of any other point on the plane of the respective triangle with its normal vector, and this vector is a constant offset for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles, represented by: ” which is clearly reciting to perform a mathematical operation. The above limitations are reciting a standard way of representing a plane in a 3D coordinate system and is commonly called the point-normal form. The dot product form is merely a rearrangement point-normal form and therefore the dot product is inherent in the mathematical definition of a plane in 3D linear algebra. Accordingly, these claim elements simply recite a fundamental expression of geometric properties. The dot product is recognized as the most mathematically concise way to express the intrinsic geometric definition of a plane in vector mathematics. Accordingly, under STEP 2A PRONG ONE, the claim recites additional mathematical abstract idea. Under STEP 2A PRONG TWO, the claim does not recites any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim only recites mathematical elements. Under STEP 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more because, again, the claim only recites mathematical elements. Claim 4 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining, for each triangle of the plurality of triangles, a distance between the plane of the respective triangle and a center point of each cell of the plurality of cells, wherein the distance between the plane of the respective triangle and the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells is the difference of the constant offset and a dot product of the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells and the normal plane, as represented by: where D is the distance between the plane of the respective triangle and the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells, and C is the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells ” which is merely additional mathematical calculation. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 5 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining a greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (D max ), wherein the greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (Dmax) is a sum of absolute values of products of like terms, as represented by: where B is a vector from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to one corner of the volume, and ct is a triangle thickness for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles reducing floating point errors ” which is merely additional mathematical calculation. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 6 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining if one or more cells of the plurality of cells intersects the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles, wherein determining if one or more cells of the plurality of cells intersects the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles comprises comparing a value of the greatest extent of the one or more cells of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle with the distance from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle, wherein an intersection is possible only if the distance from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle is less than the greatest extent of the one or more cells of the plurality of cells toward the plane of the respective triangle ” which is merely additional mathematical calculation. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 7 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining the distance (D) from each cell of the plurality of cells to each triangle in the plurality of triangles in linear time by separating the x, y, and z components of the calculation of (N C) required for the calculation of distance (D), as represented by: wherein for subsequent cells of the plurality of cells along the x, y, or z axes, the value of NxCx,NyCy, or NzCz respectively is found by adding a constant term to the same value found for the previous cell along the respective axis, wherein the constant term can be represented by NxSx,NySy,orNzSz respectively for the x, y, and z axes, where S x , S y , and Sz are the length of each cell of the plurality of cells along the x, y, and z axes respectively, and wherein using the processor to precompute each of these values of NxCx,NyCy,andNzCz, the distance (D) from each cell of the plurality of cells to each triangle of the plurality of triangles is computed as the addition of four precomputed values, these being NxCx,NyCy,NzCz, and -(N - A), moving the bulk of processor work into linear time precomputation in place of cubic time ” which is merely additional mathematical calculation. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 8 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining edge-normal plane-tangent vectors for each edge of the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles as normalized cross-product of each edge of the respective triangle of the pluralities of triangles with the normal vector of the respective triangle of the pluralities of triangles, such that one or more cells of the plurality of cells that do intersection with the plane of the respective triangle but do not intersect with the respective triangle is excluded ” which is merely additional mathematical calculation. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 9 recites “ wherein the box-in-triangle test comprises: using the processor, storing unit vectors normal to a plane of each triangle of the plurality of triangles and triangle vertex state for each triangle of the plurality of triangles ” is merely the recitation to store mathematical values. While the claim recites “using the process” to store these numbers. Merely reciting to use a computer to store values is not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more because storing values is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites “ wherein the measuring of the distance between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprises: preemptively enlarging all triangles of the plurality of triangles by a constant width, wherein enlarging the triangles comprises: using the processor, adding to each of the triangle vertices a weighted sum of the two edge vectors that meet to make up that vertex, as represented by: where A', B', and C' are the locations of the vertices of the respective enlarged triangle, TAB, TCA, and TBC are the edge-normal plane-tangent vectors for each edge AB, CA, and BC between vertices A, B, and C of the respective enlarged triangle, and m is the margin width ” which are simply additional mathematical operations. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 11 recites “ wherein the margin width (m) is represented by: C where f is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation being simulated, and E is the user's desired minimum diffraction-angle-standard-deviation for consideration ” which are additional mathematical operations. The claim does not recites any elements other than the abstract idea and therefore cannot recite elements that are a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites “ wherein the measuring of the distance between the ray and the one or more occluding bodies further comprises: using the processor, determining a distance from an edge of the original triangle without additional margins using the barycentric coordinates as follows: wherein if any of the distances (D edgeBC , D edgeAC, D edgeAB ) is positive, the ray hits only the margin and not the actual triangle indicating diffraction, and if each of the distances (D edgeBc , D edgeAC , D edgeAB ) is less than zero, the ray hits the actual triangle, and wherein the distances (D edgeBc , D edgeAC , D edgeAB ) are used to calculate the deflection angle standard deviation as it corresponds to a physical distance absolutely ” which are additional mathematical operations. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 13 recites “ wherein the accounting for all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprises: using the processor, determining an angle of diffraction to send another ray of the plurality of rays after a diffraction interaction through the use of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, represented by: where Ax is the uncertainty in a particle's position, Ap is the uncertainty in the particle's momentum, and h is the reduced Planck constant, wherein the ray is representative of an imagined photon, and an uncertainty in position of the imagined photo is no more than a distance (x) at which the respective ray of the plurality of rays passes from the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles when the respective ray of the plurality of rays hits the margin, such that the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be restated as: in the direction from the respective ray of a plurality of rays towards the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles ” which merely recites additional mathematical principles. While the claim recites “using the process” this is simply a recitation to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Merely executing an abstract idea by “using a processor” is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 15 recites “ wherein at least one ray of the plurality of rays has a frequency less than about 400 T H z ” which is merely the specification of the value used in a mathematical calculatio n. Therefore, this merely recites additional mathematical elements. Claim 16 recites “ wherein the processor is configured to store information and receive and integrate supplemental parameters and data, where integrating an amount of time each ray spends in each cell of the plurality of cells allows an electromagnetic field intensity at each point in the simulation to be developed . ” As outlined above, an acceleration structure is fundamentally a mathematical construct or, more accurately an abstract data structure which is a mathematical framework that represents spatial relationships (cells) in an X,Y,Z coordinate system that facilitates calculations related to 3D geometry. The claim is merely describing using the mathematical construct for accounting or keeping track of numbers that when integrated (i.e., combined/consolidated) provide a numeric value that is linked to/characterized as/named: electromagnetic field intensity. The claim language describes, at a very high level, t he relationship known to be governed by Maxwell's equations, simplified into the wave equation. When solving this for a uniform plane wave in a lossy medium, the electric field amplitude 𝐸 at a distance 𝑑 is defined by the following mathematical expression: 𝐸 ( 𝑑 )= 𝐸 0 ⋅𝑒 −( 𝛼 + 𝑗𝛽 ) 𝑑 This equation is standard in all electromagnetics textbooks . 𝐸 0 is the initial field strength. 𝑑 is the distance traveled (directly related to the "time spent in the cell"). 𝑗 is the imaginary unit. 𝛽 is the phase constant (related to the speed of propagation and phase delay). 𝛼 is the attenuation constant (which accounts for the material losses and determines amplitude reduction). The path length/time value 𝑑 is a direct input to both the attenuation factor/delay ( 𝛼𝑑 ) and the phase delay factor ( 𝛽𝑑 ). The final field strength is calculated mathematically by applying these factors Accordingly, it is a fundamental principle of science that the time an electromagnetic field spends propagating in a region allows, through maxwells equation, an electromagnetic field intensity at each point in the region to be developed (i.e., calculated). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical abstract idea. While the claim recites “ wherein the processor is configured to store information and receive and integrate supplemental parameters and data” this is merely the recitation of a general purpose computer doing general purpose computer activities which is tantamount to merely invoking a computer as a tool upon which the abstract idea is merely executed. Accordingly, these elements to not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 15 is 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 term “about” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 400 THz” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Office interprets “about” to be anything under 400 THz. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 , 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acceleration_Structures_2012 (Introduction to Acceleration Structures, downloaded from https://www.scratchapixel.com dated Oct 6, 2012) in view of Panychev_2017 (Efficient Three-Dimensional Ray Tracing and Electromagnetic Field Intensity Estimation Algorithm for WLAN, IEEE 2017). Claim 1. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “ A method for simulating [calculating] interaction between a propagating field [ray] and one or more occluding bodies in a volume, wherein the method comprises: u sing a processor, [computer code] constructing a three-dimensional grid acceleration structure that comprises a plurality of cells, the volume containing a plurality of two-dimensional triangles that intersects or reside in one or more of the plurality of cells (page 43/76 Grid: “in this chapter we will describe a technique proposed by Akira Fujimoto in 1986 (in a paper entitled “ARTS: Accelerated Ray Tracing Systems ”). The idea is to subdivide space in sub-regions and as the ray passes through these sub-regions, check if they contain geometry that we should ray-trace against (this algorithm belongs to the category of methods called spatial division also called spatial coherence or space tracing)… these methods are used to determine if the region which the ray is passing, is occupied by objects. This idea is illustrated in the following figure (Figure 1) …” Page 57/76 Figure 11 illustrates a two-dimensional triangle inside a plurality of cells. Page 59/76 Figure 13 illustrates a plurality of two-dimensional triangles ) u sing a processor , [computer code] iterating through a plurality of rays and tracing each of the plurality of rays to approximate the propagating field , wherein the tracing of each of the plurality of rays comprises determining a starting point and stepping through each cell of the plurality of cells through which the ray intersects or travels ( page 44/76 Grid: “… we subdivide the region of space containing the object into a regular 3D grid (in figure 1, the technique is illustrated in 2D)… triangles of the models are then inserted in the grid’s cells they overlap… testing if a ray intersects the model’s geometry is simple. We traverse the grid cell by cell following the ray’s direction. If the current cell is occupied by some geometry, then we check if the ray intersects this geometry… we move to the next cell pierced by the ray . This process is repeated until the ray hits an object or until the ray leaves the grid… Spatially Enumerated Auxiliary Data Structure … SEADS…” ) u sing the processor , [computer code] determining and accounting for all interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies ( page 49/76: “… we need to keep track of the cells the ray is traversing …”; page 53/76 : “… for each time we cross the boundary of a cell along the X or Y axis we need to decrement the cell index…walking through the grid when the ray leaves the grid… we also need to keep track of the cell position (cell index) as we walk through the cells…”; page 67/76: “… the ray-triangle intersection test and the usual procedure to keep track of the nearest intersection…”; page 22/76: “… computes the intersection of the current ray with each of the seven slabs enclosing the object and tracks the greatest of the dNear values…” ), the determining all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising : p erforming ray-triangle intersection for all triangles of the plurality of triangles intersecting or residing in cells occupied by the one or more occluding bodies ( pages 8, 10, 19, 43. EXAMINER NOTE: Acceleration structures like Bounding Volume Hierarchies (BVH) and Grids are used to reduce the number of necessary intersection tests, but once a ray is determined to intersect a given volume or cell, all the geometry (triangles) contained within that specific volume must then be tested for intersection with the ray. The goal of acceleration structures is to quickly reject large groups of objects the ray will never hit, thereby saving time by avoiding the ray-triangle intersection test for those objects ) , and m easuring distance between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies ( pages 19, 32 EXAMINER NOTE: The calculation is derived from the plane equation and the ray equation, yielding the distance t to the intersection point: 𝑡 = ( 𝑑 − 𝑁𝑖⋅𝑂)/(𝑁𝑖⋅𝑅) ) , and t he accounting all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising: a dding additional rays of the plurality of rays as reflections, transmissions, and diffractions of the approximated propagating field. While Acceleration_Structures_2012 clearly illustrates C++ code and pseudo code that performs the methods described and while computer code would properly make obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art “using a processor” and “using the processor” , Acceleration_Structures_2012 does not EXPLICITLY recite “using a processor” or “using the processor.” Also, while Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches to perform calculations, Acceleration_Structures_2012 does not teach that the calculations are “simulating” a “propagating field” or to use the ray-object intersection “to approximate the propagating field.” Additionally, Acceleration_Structures_2012 does not teach “ and the accounting all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising: adding additional rays of the plurality of rays as reflections, transmissions, and diffractions of the approximated propagating field .” Panychev_2017 , however, makes obvious “simulating” a “propagating field” and to use ray-tracing “to approximate the propagating field” and “ the accounting all of the interactions between each ray of the plurality of rays and the one or more occluding bodies comprising: adding additional rays of the plurality of rays as reflections, transmissions, and diffractions of the approximated propagating field ” (title: Efficient three-dimensional ray tracing and electromagnetic field intensity estimation algorithm for WLAN; abstract: “… ray tracing based on the principles of geometric optics, mirror image and geometric theory of diffraction… is intended for analysis of electromagnetic waves propagation … intensity … is simulated using the proposed ways of calculation… with account of direct, reflected and diffraction rays … the proposed algorithm is appropriate for… accuracy… and required costs of computational resources…” ; page 1 section 3: “… describe the reflection and diffraction of radio waves…”; page 2: “… each ray can be described… angle of incidence for each reflection; the coordinate of each reflection, diffraction and refraction point… t he trajectory of the ray passing through the multilayered obstacle … the algorithm is a calculation of the electromagnetic field intensity in the communication system coverage area …”; page 3: “… calculating WLAN signal intensity…”; page 4: “an algorithm for three-dimensional ray tracing based on the principle of geometric optics, mirror image and geometric diffraction theory and a way for estimation the intensity of electromagnetic waves … taking into account the direct, reflected and diffracted rays …”). Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Panychev_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called ray tracing. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Panychev_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been that Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches to use an acceleration structure to improve performance of ray tracing algorithms and Panychev_2017 teaches to use ray tracing algorithms to calculate an estimation of propagating EM fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Panychev_2017 for the benefit of more efficiently calculating EM field intensity to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 2. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “ wherein the constructing of the three-dimensional grid acceleration structure uses a planar step process comprising a box-in-triangle test ” ( page 2 “… intersection test… Accelerated Ray Tracing (1983) Fumimoto … ray-triangle intersection test…”; page 7 – 8: “… the triangles from this bounding box… ray-triangle intersection tests… bounding boxes from the scene… if the ray intersects the bounding box through, all the triangles contained in the volume… pseudo code…”). Claim 9. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “wherein the box-in-triangle test comprises: using the processor, storing unit vectors normal to a plane of each triangle of the plurality of triangles and triangle vertex state for each triangle of the plurality of triangles” (pages 4 and 19 teaches how to perform a ray-triangle intersection test that implicitly uses a plane normal and requires the triangle vertices as input. The document includes a C++ function prototype intersect Triangle which takes the three vertices of a triangle (v0, v1, v2) as parameters (see page 4). The explanation of the general ray-plane intersection principle (which is fundamental to the ray-triangle intersection test) describes using a plane normal (N) to calculate the intersection distance (see page 19). The plane normal itself is not an explicit input parameter to the intersect Triangle function, but it is calculated implicitly or used in the underlying algorithm described. The function determines if a ray intersects the plane defined by the three input vertices, and then determines if that intersection point is within the bounds of the triangle (implicitly using barycentric coordinates, a common method for this test) (See page 4). Claim 3. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “ wherein the box-in-triangle test comprises: using the processor, determining a plane for each triangle, wherein the plane for each triangle is represented by: where N is a vector normal to the plane of the respective triangle, A is a point of interest on the plane of the respective triangle, and x, y, and z are the x-, y-, and z-coordinates, respectively, of another point on the plane of the respective triangle, and wherein rearranging the plane of the respective triangle in terms of dot-products shows that for any point (x, y, z) on the plane of the respective triangle the dot product of that point with the normal vector will be equal to the dot product of any other point on the plane of the respective triangle with its normal vector, and this vector is a constant offset for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles, represented by: “ (pages 15 equations of a plane , page 19 calculation of dot products. EXAMINER NOTE: The equation above is the vector form of the plane equation used in computer graphics, and a variation of this equation is used in Acceleration_Structures_2012 to calculate the distance to a plane. The general plane equation can be written as 𝐍⋅𝐏 − 𝑑 =0, where 𝐍 is the normal vector, 𝐏 is any point (x,y,z) on the plane and 𝑑 is the distance from the world origin to the plane along the normal vector (see p. 15). Your equation, 𝐍⋅ ( 𝐏 − 𝐀 )=0 (or Nx(x-Ax) + Ny(y-Ay)+ Nz(Z-Az) = 0), is equivalent to the form presented in Acceleration_Structures_2012 : 𝐍⋅𝐏 = 𝐍⋅𝐀 , the term 𝑑 is defined as 𝐍⋅𝐀 , where 𝐀 (or 𝐏𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑧 in the text) is a specific point lying on that plane (p. 15). This plane equation is fundamental for determining the intersection point of a ray with a plane, which is the first step in more complex tests like ray-triangle or ray-box intersection algorithms (p. 19). ). Claim 4. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining, for each triangle of the plurality of triangles, a distance between the plane of the respective triangle and a center point of each cell of the plurality of cells, wherein the distance between the plane of the respective triangle and the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells is the difference of the constant offset and a dot product of the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells and the normal plane, as represented by: where D is the distance between the plane of the respective triangle and the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells, and C is the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells ” ( EXAMINER NOTE: The claimed calculation answers the question: "which side of this plane is this point on, and by how much?" and this information informs the ray tracing algorithm which cell the object is in. Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches dNear and Dfar which provide information for determining a bounding box around the object and accordingly perform a similar function. dNear and dFar are distances derived from this principle that serve a similar function of spatial organization: Page 16 - 21: Determining Bounding Boxes: The document calculates dNear and dFar by projecting an object's vertices onto a plane normal (N). These two scalar values define a "slab" (a region between two parallel planes) that tightly bounds the object in that specific direction Guiding the Algorithm: This bounding information is then used by the ray tracing algorithm to quickly reject large groups of objects. The algorithm first performs a ray-box intersection test using these dNear and dFar values. If the ray misses the overall bounding volume, the entire collection of objects within it can be safely ignored, saving numerous individual ray-triangle intersection tests. This information tells the algorithm which volumes (or cells in a grid/octree) the ray interacts with, thereby informing which objects need further, detailed testing. See page 32.). Claim 15. Panychev_2017 makes obvious “wherein at least one ray of the plurality of rays has a frequency less than about 400 THz” (page 3: “… the results shown in the article were obtained at 2.4 GHz frequency. For other frequency bands IEEE 802.11x standard, such as 5 – 6 GHz and 60 Ghz, the use of geometric optics is also possible…”). ( 2 ) Claims 5 , 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acceleration_Structures_2012 in view of Panychev_2017 in view of Ize_2013 (Robust BVH Traversal, Journal of Computer Graphics Techniques, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2013). Claim 5. Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches to calculate a value: tFar (page 19) which is the maximum distance used when checking if a ray intersects a bounding volume of cell. This makes the claimed Dmax obvious as the claimed Dmax is greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle. The calculation involves Calculating Plane Intersections: For each of the predefined plane-set normals that make up a bounding volume, the algorithm calculates two intersection distances along the ray: tn and tf (temporaries for near and far intersection distances for the current plane) (See pages 20 - 22). Tracking Maximum and Minimum Distances: The algorithm maintains a global tNear (the largest near-distance of all planes) and tFar (the smallest far-distance of all planes) for the entire volume. If the initial tNear becomes greater than the current tFar, the ray misses the bounding volume entirely (see pages 20 - 22). Defining the Interval: The final tFar value (or tMin in a specific implementation example in the text) represents the point on the ray where it exits the bounding volume (see pages. 20, 40). Prioritizing Traversal: When using a Bounding Volume Hierarchy (BVH), these intersection distances (tNear and tFar) are used to prioritize which child nodes to test first. Nodes closer to the ray's origin (smaller t value) are generally tested sooner, though a priority queue system ensures the object that is actually closest is found first (pp. 32, 34). Acceleration_Structures_2012 also mentions that care must be taken with floating-point precision, especially when the ray's denominator is close to zero, which can require swapping tnear and tfar values ( see p age 20) . Accordingly, Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining a greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (D max ), wherein the greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (Dmax) is a sum of absolute values of products of like terms, as represented by: Dmax = |NxBx| +|NyBy| + |NzBz| where B is a vector from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to one corner of the volume. and while the need to account for floating-point precision is indicated, Acceleration_Structure_2012 does not explicitly handle this by an Epsilon and therefore does not explicitly recite: “ “… ϵt … and ϵt is a triangle thickness for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles reducing floating point errors”. Ize_2013 ; however, makes obvious “… ϵt … and ϵt is a triangle thickness for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles reducing floating point errors” (page 16 section 3 “source of error… where e is the machine epsilon…” ; page 25: “… Table 1… triangle intersection tests (int) compared to the default non-robust traversal where no padding is used . From left to right, the columns correspond to: using no padding so that false-misses occur, padding the bounds of every BVH node by the minimum fixed epsilon specified during BVH construction , adding exactly 2 ulps to the padded inverse direction when the ray is created, and finally, multiplying ˜tmax by 1.00000024f so that at least 2 ulps of padding are added to ˜tmax at each traversal step…”) Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Ize_2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called ray tracing. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Ize_2013. The rationale for doing so would have been that Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches to take into account floating point error and Ize_2013 teaches to add an epsilon padding during triangle intersection testing for the purpose of avoiding floating point errors that can cause, for example, false misses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Ize_2013 for the benefit of avoiding floating point error to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Therefore, in combination Acceleration_Structures_2012 and Ize_2013 makes obvious “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining a greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (D max ), wherein the greatest extent of the respective cell of the plurality of cells towards the plane of the respective triangle (Dmax) is a sum of absolute values of products of like terms, as represented by: where B is a vector from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to one corner of the volume, and ct is a triangle thickness for the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles reducing floating point errors ”. Claim 6. Acceleration_Structures_2012 makes obvious “ wherein the box-in-triangle test further comprises: using the processor, determining if one or more cells of the plurality of cells intersects the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles, wherein determining if one or more cells of the plurality of cells intersects the respective triangle of the plurality of triangles comprises comparing a value of the greatest extent of the one or more cells of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle with the distance from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle, wherein an intersection is possible only if the distance from the center point of the respective cell of the plurality of cells to the plane of the respective triangle is less than the greatest extent of the one or more cells of the plurality of cells toward the plane of the respective triangle ” ( EXAMINER NOTE: the Bounding Volumes (Boxes) make the claimed box-in-triangle test as outlined above obvious. Acceleration_Structures_2012 introduces the concept of a bounding volume (specifically, an Axis-Aligned Bounding Box, or AABB) around complex geometry (like a teapot mesh) to speed up ray tracing . See pages 7 – 8. This serves the same purpose as checking the "box" in the claim’s "box-in-triangle" test. Acceleration_Structures_2012 also teaches a Plane Equation/Slab Test: The core logic involves using the plane equation to define "slabs" that bound the object . See pages 15, 17. Acceleration_Structures_2012 explains how a ray is tested against these planes to see if it intersects the volume. See page 19. This plane-based testing is a direct analog to comparing the distance to a plane with the extent of a cell in the claim . Acceleration_Structures_2012 teaches that such tests are done to achieve Hierarchical Culling: This entire approach is classified as using an acceleration structure , which is designed to quickly "reject large group of objects which we know for certain the ray will never hit" . See page 2. Acceleration_Structures_2012 then builds upon this idea using a Bounding Volume Hierarchy (BVH) . See pages 13, 26) or page 28 (Octree) , which further groups these bounding boxes hierarchically to perform even faster culling operations. Additionally, Acceleration_Structures_2012 provides specific code snippets and pseudocode . see page s 16, 19, 22 . This code detail s the exact mechanics of these tests, demonstrating a similar underlying mathematical principles to the claim elements.) Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acceleration_Structures_2012 in view of P