DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 08/06/2026. Claims 2-6 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserted on page 8 that the claims 2-6 have been amended to clarify the subject matter as the Examiner suggests.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant fails to address all of the subject matter as Examiner suggested. See objection below for details.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on page 10, “Although amended claim 1 may recite mathematical operations as part of the processing, those operations are used merely as a means to achieve a specific technological purpose, and claim 1 does not merely claim the mathematical operations as the subject matter of the invention. Thus, the claim does not merely recite a mathematical concept in the abstract, but instead applies any such concept in a specific technological context.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because under 101 analysis, the claim recites mathematical operations under step 2A prong one and does not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant further asserted on page 10, “Furthermore, conventional approaches for analyzing time responses of passive networks based on band-limited S-parameters are inaccurate and computationally burdensome. Amended claim 1 improves the accuracy and computational efficiency of time response analysis for passive networks by processing the measured band-limited S- parameter to derive a more accurate time response. Therefore, even if the claim is considered to recite a mathematical concept, the claim integrates that concept into a practical application and is not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because any arguably improvements, such as improving accuracy and computational efficiency, are direct consequences of performing the judicial exception as recited in the claim as explained on page 24 that accuracy is improved by as the band extension error is adjusted not greater than the reference value by adjusting the propagation delay time removed and the improving of time response performance by extending frequency band, adjusting delay time, and performing convolution operation, which are considered as mathematical concept. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” Thus, as explained above, any arguably improvement is provided by the judicial exception alone, which is not considered as a technological improvement under 101 analyses.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 3 line 4 and 6 "the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter" should be "the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
claim 4 line 4 and 5; claim 5 line 4; claim 6 line 4 "the S-parameter" should be "the band-limited S-parameter".
claim 5 line 5 "the measurement band" should be "a measurement band" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
claim 6 line 8 and 16 "the imaginary number of the S-parameter" should be "the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
claim 6 line 9 and 16 "delay time" should be "the propagation delay time" as antecedently recited.
Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pre-processing unit” in claim 2. Figure 5 of parent application illustrates step by step algorithm to remove a propagation delay time and deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter Hm_zd(f) by multiplying Hm(f) function and
e
j
2
ρ
π
f
τ
e
s
t
. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a band extension unit” in claim 2. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 to add Hxel(f) and Hxeh(f) to Hxm(f) and perform Hilbert transform as described in equation 10, and specification of instant application on page 21-23 describes equation 3-5 for deriving coefficients by applying LSE technique as expressed in equations 4-5. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“an interpolation function generation module” in claim 3. Figure 6 of parent application illustrates flowchart to generate low frequency band interpolation function, and see equation 16 on page 20 of the parent specification that describes the equation to generate the interpolation function. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“an extrapolation function generating module” in claim 3. Figure 7 of parent application illustrates flowchart to generate high frequency band extrapolation function, and see equation 18 on page 22 of the parent specification that describes the equation to generate the extrapolation function. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a frequency extension module” in claim 3. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 to add the interpolation function Hxel and the extrapolation function Hxeh to the imaginary part of the S-parameter Hxm. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a restoration module” in claim 3. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 that performs Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter to restore the real part and the Hilbert transform is further described in equation 10. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a coefficient derivation module” in claim 3. Specification of instant application on page 21-23 describes equation 3-5 for deriving coefficients by applying LSE technique as expressed in equations 4-5. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a final band extension module” in claim 3. Figure 4 of parent application illustrates the final band extension Hxe is output and figure 5 of parent application illustrates Q100 to compare the difference between real part of band-extended and band-limited to a predetermined reference value, such as the equation 3 of specification of parent application page 11. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a remove module” in claim 4. Figure 5 of parent application illustrates step by step algorithm to remove a propagation delay time and deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter Hm_zd(f) by multiplying Hm(f) function and
e
j
2
ρ
π
f
τ
e
s
t
. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a band extension error derivation module” in claim 4. Specification of parent application page 11-12 describes equations 3 and 4 that derive a band extension error by calculating NMSE with difference between real part of band-extended and band-limited. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a propagation delay time update module” in claim 4. Specification of parent application page 11-12 describes equations 3 and 4 reduces the period to a given period when the band extension error calculated in equation 3 is greater than the reference value. . Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “a band extension unit configured to … obtain an impulse response by performing Inverse Fourier Transform (IFT)on the final band-extension S-parameter” on line 28-30. However, page 23 figure 5 describes a post processing unit 35 derives an impulse response by performing IFT on the band-extended S-parameter, rather than the band extension unit 33. Thus, the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the band extension unit to perform IFT to obtain an impulse response as required in the amended claim 2.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 line 31 recites “wherein the system is configured to analyze the time response of the passive network”. Such limitation renders the claim unclear because the claim does not provide a boundary on what performs the function of analyzing. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claims, e.g., the pre-processing unit and the band extension unit, so it is unclear whether the function analyzing requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the system requires other structure to perform the analyzing function.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites a system for analyzing a time response of a passive network with a band-limited S-parameter
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula such as analyzing time response with a band-limited S-parameter of (see at least page 14 describes that analyze the time response of the passive network is done by performing convolution of the impulse response and input voltage waveform of the passive network, wherein convolution operation is a mathematical operation); remove a propagation delay time from the band-limited S-parameter, obtain an imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter from the band-limited S-parameter (see at least figure 5 of parent application that illustrates the mathematical algorithm to remove delay time and derive an imaginary part, specification of parent application page 10-11 describes the propagation delay time is removed by performing mathematical equation 2, which is to multiply the Hm(f) and e
e
j
2
π
f
τ
e
s
t
to derive Hm_zd(f)), obtain a band-extended S-parameter by combining an interpolation function of a low frequency band and an extrapolation function of a high frequency band with the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter (see at least specification of parent application page 17 or figure 4 of instant application describes equation 17 that perform adding Hxel(f) [i.e., an interpolation function of a low frequency band] and Hxeh(f) [i.e., an extrapolation function of a high frequency band] to derive Hxe(f) [i.e., an imaginary part of a band-extended S-parameter]), restore a real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S- parameter (see at least page 19 Hilber transform is a mathematical transformation Ht()), adjust the propagation delay time based on a difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and a real part of the band-limited S- parameter (see at least page 4 describes the adjusting step is done according to a comparison result with a predetermined reference value, see at least page 11-12 of parent application describes equation 3 for performing the comparison operation and adjust propagation delay time as illustrated in figure 5 step Q100 and S140 of parent application), derive coefficients of the interpolation function and the extrapolation function by using the difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed, (see at least page 5 describes the deriving coefficients is done by applying an LSE (least square error), also see equation 5 on page 20-21), obtain a final band-extended S-parameter with applying the propagation delay time and the coefficients (see at least page 24 describes the step of obtaining final band-extended S-parameter), and obtain an impulse response by performing Inverse Fourier transform (IFT) on the final band-extended S- parameter (performing IFT is a mathematical transformation, see at least equation 1 of page 14 of instant specification or equation 10-11 page 17 of parent application); analyze the time response of the passive network using an output voltage waveform of the passive network obtained based on the impulse response and the input voltage waveform of the passive network (such step of analyzing is performed by the convolution operation of the impulse response and input voltage waveform, wherein convolution operation is a mathematical operation, see at least page 24 of instant specification. Thus, the step of analyzing is performing mathematical operation), Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a system comprising a passive network, a measuring instrument, a pre-processing unit and a band extension unit. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as computer components performing computer function of measuring and processing data, wherein page 11 of specification describes the passive network is provided with a semiconductor package or a printed circuit board including various components and output of the passive network is measured by the instrument. Thus, at most the passive network and instrument are merely recited as tools to obtain data to perform the mathematical algorithms for analyzing. Alternatively, the step of measuring the band-limited S-parameter of the passive network with respect to an input voltage waveform using instrument is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gather and well-known). Furthermore, the pre-processing unit and the band extension unit invoked 112(f) and as explained above, specification of parent application describes on page 6 are merely processor executing program or instructions to perform mathematical operations. Moreover, the claim also recites a limitation of “thereby, improving a performance of the time response of the passive network”, such limitation is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea. Therefore; such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer elements (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. The same conclusion is reached in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic element cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. The step of measuring S-parameter of a network using instrument considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see at least Schmitt, Former Director of Electrical Engineering, Sensor Research and Development Corp. Orono. Electromagnetics Explained: A Handbook for Wireless/ RF, EMC, and High-Speed Electronics, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2002, page 223-224 describes the vector network analyzer (VNA) [i.e., the instrument] is the most commonly used instrument, wherein VNA is an instrument that measure both the amplitude and phase of the S-parameter of 1-port and 2-port devices). Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites generating the interpolation function of the low frequency band in the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter (see at least page 20 of parent application describes equation 20 to generate the interpolation function Hxel(f)); generating the extrapolation function of the high frequency band in the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter (see at least page 22 of parent application describes equation 18 to generate the interpolation function Hxeh(f); extending a measurement band to derive the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter by adding the interpolation function of the low frequency band and the extrapolation function of the high frequency band to the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter (see at least figure 4 of instant application illustrates equation that add Hxel and Hxeh and Hxm to extend the measurement band); a restoration module restoring the real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter (see at page 17 of parent application describes equations 10-11 for performing Hilbert transform); applying an LSE (least square error) technique that minimizes the difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed, to derive the coefficients of the interpolation function and the extrapolation function (see at least page 19 of parent application describes the step of applying LSE technique, which is a mathematical algorithm, to derive coefficients of interpolation function and extrapolation function, minimizing the different between real part of band-extended and band-limited S-parameter is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea); and outputting the final band- extended S-parameter when the difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed is not greater than a predetermined reference value (see at least page 11 of parent application that describes equation 3 performs the comparison and step Q100 to determine to output result or adjust delay time). The claim further recites additional elements, such as an interpolation function generation module, an extrapolation function generating module, a frequency extension module, a restoration module, a coefficient derivation module, and a final band extension module. However, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoke 112(f) interpretation, which describes in specification of parent application page 6 as processor executing program to perform mathematical operations, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to computer components. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites removing the propagation delay time of a predetermined maximum period from the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, and deriving the imaginary part of the S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed (see at least figure 5 and page 10 pf parent application describes equation 2 that removes propagation delay time and deriving the imaginary part of the S-parameter) ; deriving a band extension error by calculating an NMSE (Normalized Mean Square Error) with the difference between the real part of the band- extended S-parameter of the coefficient derivation module and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed (see at least page 11 of parent application describes equation 3 to calculate band extension error); and reducing the predetermined maximum period of the propagation delay time to a given period when the calculated band extension error is greater than the predetermined reference value (see at least page 11-13 and figure 5 of parent application describes the step of adjusting propagation delay time when the band extension error is greater than the NMSE). The claim further recites a remove module, a band extension error derivation module, and a propagation delay time update module. However, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoke 112(f) interpretation, which describes in specification of parent application page 6 as processor executing program to perform mathematical operations, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to computer components. Moreover, the claim recites the step of transmitting the propagation delay time of the reduced period to the removal module, but such limitation is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two (e.g., mere data gathering) and determined to be well-understood, routine and convention activity under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites the interpolation function is provided to be set as a polynomial in a form of an odd function having only odd terms in the imaginary part of the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, to allow an interpolation function value to be zero at 0 Hz with extended low frequency in order to have a frequency response characteristic in the interpolation function in the polynomial in the form of the odd function having only odd terms, and to allow the interpolation function value at a frequency where an imaginary number of the interpolation function of the low frequency band meets the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed and S-parameter value to be equal to each other, and differential values thereof to be equal to each other. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describing the interpolation function Hxel(f), see at least page 15-16 mathematical equations 8-9 of the parent application and figure 4 of the instant application). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites the extrapolation function is provided to be set as a polynomial in a form of an odd function having only odd terms in the imaginary part of the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, to allow an extrapolation function value at a frequency where an imaginary number of the extrapolation function of an extended high-frequency band meets the imaginary number of the S-parameter from which the delay time is removed and the S-parameter value to be equal to each other, in order to have a frequency response characteristic in the interpolation function of the polynomial in the form of the odd function having only the odd terms, to allow differential values of the extrapolation function value at the frequency where the imaginary number of the extrapolation function of the extended high-frequency band meets the imaginary number of the S-parameter from which the delay time is removed and the S-parameter value to be equal to each other, and to set an end-point frequency of the extended high-frequency band to a predetermined maximum frequency. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describing the interpolation function Hxeh(f), see at least page 21-22 mathematical equations 17-18 of the parent application and figure 4 of the instant application). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
