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 3/23/2026
Claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 are amended.
Claims 10, 11, 15, 16 are cancelled.
Claims 17, 18 are newly presented.
Claims 1 – 9, 12, 13, 17, 18 are presented for examination.
Final Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The applicant has amended the drawing. The drawings dated 3/23/2026 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Claim Objections
The applicant has cancelled claims 14 – 16. As there was no previous claim 14 claim 14 can’t be cancelled. Nevertheless, the previous objection is withdrawn. Claims 15 and 16 have been cancelled and renumbered as 17 and 18. Claims 17 and 18 properly depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant has incorporated, what the Examiner indicated as, potentially allowable subject matter into the independent claim. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant asserts that the invention improves a technology and cites paragraph 3, 4, 32, 33 as support for a disclosure of how the claimed invention improves a technology.
The Examiner has considered the argument; however, it is not persuasive.
In order to make an improvement to a technology, there must be (1) a teaching in the specification as to how the claimed invention improves a technology and (2) a particular solution to the disclosed problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
A review of the specification is as follows:
Par 3: “… simulation packages are commonly used… conventional electromagnetic simulation packages include… each of which provide options for simulating interactions between a propagating field and occluding bodies using techniques such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Method of Moment (MOM). Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD), Empirical Methods (EM), Standard Ray Tracing (SRT), and/or Domain Path Model (DPM). A common problem, however, is performece. For example, using WinProp’s Standard Ray Tracing to simulate… can take several hours… common simulation packages, like WinProp’s Standard Ray Tracing, do not make use of previous calculates…”
Therefore, paragraph 3 lists several mathematical methods which are used by conventional software and states that the problem is that these mathematical calculation methods “can take several hours.”
Par 4: “yet another common problem, is the proprietary nature of such existing systems, which often results in legacy features and difficulties interacting with established standards… instead of using industrial standard three-dimensional model files, in such instances, the user needs often use the files provided in the proprietary database format…”
Therefore, paragraph 4 states that a problem is the use of proprietary file formats. The claims, however, do not recite elements which address this issue and do not provide an particular solution that solves the problem of proprietary file formats. Therefore, the claim cannot properly be found to improve such a technology.
Par 5: “accordingly, there is a need for systems, and methods of making and using the same, for simulating steady state electromagnetic (EM) field strength and power in arbitrary environments that provide modern interfaces, full three-dimensional simulation editor, and an ability to load standard format files.”
This paragraph lists the problems in the technology to be: (1) simulating steady state electromagnetic (EM) fields in an arbitrary environment (2) providing modern interfaces, and (3) 3D simulation editor, and (4) standard format files.
The claims, however, do not recite elements that provide a particular solution for a modern interface, a 3D simulation editor, or standard file formats. Accordingly, the claims may not properly be found to improve such technologies.
Par 31: “A Monte Carlo Ray Tracing (MCRT) process, also known as Stochastic Ray Tracing process, is proposed as an alternative to existing wave-equations (e.g., Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Method of Moment (MOM). Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD), Empirical Methods (EM), Standard Ray Tracing (SRT), and/or Domain Path Model (DPM))…”
Therefore, the specification discloses that the present invention is mathematical method called Monte Carlo Ray Tracing (MCRT) which is alternative to other known mathematical methods (e.g., Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Method of Moment (MOM). Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD), Empirical Methods (EM), Standard Ray Tracing (SRT), and/or Domain Path Model (DPM)).
Therefore, it appears that the disclosed “improvement” to technology is merely an improvement to the abstract idea of the mathematical method itself. An improvement to a mathematical method is not an improvement a technology because the technology must be something other than the abstract idea itself. The claimed invention is simply performing a mathematical abstract idea (MCRT calculations) in the field of electro magnetic field simulations where the simulation is the mathematical calculation. As electromagnetism is a fundamental branch of physics, the claim mathematical calculation are simply being used to perform fundamental scientific calculations. It is not indicative of a practical application to perform mathematical calculation that are merely linked to a scientific field or field of use.
Therefore, having considered the claim as a whole in light of the disclosures in the specification the Examiner finds that the claims do not recite a practical application nor do they make an improvement to a technology. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
End Response to Arguments
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 – 13, 17, 18 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.”
Simulation 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) because 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 interpretation 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
16
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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:
PNG
media_image2.png
16
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
16
146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 (Dmax), 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
17
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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:
PNG
media_image5.png
17
253
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Sx, Sy, 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:
PNG
media_image6.png
237
291
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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
PNG
media_image7.png
41
164
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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:
PNG
media_image8.png
153
235
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein if any of the distances (DedgeBC, DedgeAC, DedgeAB) is positive, the ray hits only the margin and not the actual triangle indicating diffraction, and if each of the distances (DedgeBc, DedgeAC, DedgeAB) is less than zero, the ray hits the actual triangle, and wherein the distances (DedgeBc, DedgeAC, DedgeAB) 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:
PNG
media_image9.png
16
82
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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:
PNG
media_image10.png
17
90
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 17 recites “wherein at least one ray of the plurality of rays has a frequency less than about 400 THz” which is merely the specification of the value used in a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this merely recites additional mathematical elements.
Claim 18 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 17 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because Paragraph 27 cites to FIG. 3A and no such drawing exists. Also, paragraph 28 cites to FIGS 3B and 3C and no such drawings exist.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights