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 .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 08/29/2022.
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the finite-element method (FEM)" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “performing EM simulation for the EM device” in line 11. Does this limitation referring to the previous “performing” in line 8. If so, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “updating EM device design to replace initial values” in lines 18-19. It is unclear which “initial values” are replaced. Therefore, it is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a selected solution” in line 19-20. Does this limitation refer to the previous limitation recited in line 18. If so, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the simulated result” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recited “applying single-size MPVL” in line 26. Does this limitation refer to the previous limitation in line 10. If so, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the block matrix” in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “performing fast frequency sweep incorporated with MPVL method” in lines 40-41. Does this limitation refer to the previous limitation in line 26. If so, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claims 2-5, similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claims 2-5.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claim 1,
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?): Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
An electromagnetic device design system comprising:
one or more processors of a machine [a generic computer element for performing generic computer functions]; and
computer-storage medium storing instructions [a generic computer element for performing generic computer functions], which when executed by the machine, cause the machine to perform operations for EM sensitivity analysis for an electromagnetic (EM) device, the operations comprising:
initiating physical parameters of the EM device [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts], wherein the EM device comprises multiple ports;
performing EM simulation for the EM device at a pre-solution frequency using the finite-element method (FEM) [in light of applicant specification par [0172], mathematical concepts];
applying single-size matrix Pad6 via Lanczos (MPVL) method in fast frequency sweep [mathematical concepts] and
performing EM simulation for the EM device under excitation at each port to obtain field solutions of the EM device in a frequency range [in light of applicant specification par [0172], mathematical concepts];
calculating S-parameters for the multiple ports of the EM device [mathematical concepts];
obtaining derivatives of a full scattering matrix for the multiple ports with respect to the physical parameters of the EM device in the frequency range [mathematical concepts];
selecting a solution and updating EM device design to replace initial values of the physical parameters of the EM device with a selected solution [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
performing EM simulation for the EM device at a frequency of the selected solution using FEM [in light of applicant specification par [0172], mathematical concepts]; and
determining the simulated result satisfies a physical specification of the EM device [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]; wherein:
applying single-size MPVL method in fast frequency sweep [mathematical concepts] comprises:
transforming a single-size system matrix with a dimension of NxN into a double-size system matrix with a dimension of 2Nx2N for omitting second order terms of frequency, wherein N represents a number of elements in a field vector and the single-size system matrix is of a linear combination of global finite-element system matrices [mathematical concepts];
generating a first linear system using the double-size system matrix [mathematical concepts];
representing solving vectors of the first linear system with the global finite-element system matrices using the block matrix inversion method and transforming the first linear system into a second linear system, wherein the second linear system is of the single-size system matrix [mathematical concepts]; and
solving the second linear system by performing fast frequency sweep incorporated with MPVL method and obtaining field solution in a frequency range as the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
29
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where s represents a frequency; so represents a pre-solution frequency; q is a reduced order in MPVL method; Xkis a vector of field solution under excitation at port k; x4 represents a vector of qth order reduced field solution under excitation at port k; ro represents a solution vector of the first linear system at 0thMPVL iteration; V7 is represented as V=[vm]=[V1v2---vq], where vm is an orthonormal basis vector of the Krylov subspace for model order reduction; Iq is an identity matrix with a dimension of qxq; T7 is a reduced order matrix; and e1 is represented as e1 = [1 0---0]T with a dimension of 1xq [mathematical concepts, which is a formula].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “one or more processor”, and “computer storage medium”. These additional elements recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions and/or machine learning components) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, claim 1 recites “electromagnetic (EM) device”. This additional element recited at a high level of generality (e.g. generic device that measure an electromagnetic radiation). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processor”, and “computer storage medium” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, claim 1 recites an electromagnetic device that is well-known, routing or conventional (See: Patent No. 11, 900, 026 A1 col. 1 lines 12-30, “Electromagnetic devices (e.g., optical devices, electrical devices, or otherwise) are devices that create, manipulate, propagate, and/or measure electromagnetic radiation. Their applications vary broadly and include, but are not limited to, acousto-optic modulators, optical modulators, optical couplers, optical ring resonators, distributed Bragg reflectors, lasers, lenses, transistors, waveguides, antennas, and the like. Conventional techniques for the design of these devices are sometimes determined through a simple guess and check method in which a small number of design parameters of a pre-determined design are adjusted for suitability to a particular application. However, in actuality, these devices may have design parameters ranging from hundreds all the way to many billions, dependent on the device size and functionality. As functionality of electromagnetic devices is increased and manufacturing tolerances improve to allow for smaller device feature sizes, it becomes increasingly important to take full advantage of these improvements via optimized device design”). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 2-5, claims 2-5 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng et al (“Coarse- and Fine-Mesh Space Mapping for EM Optimization Incorporating Mesh Deformation” pgs. 510-512, 2019) teaches solving the coarse-mesh EM responses using the finite-element method (FEM) (pg. 511 left side column; calculating the S-parameters using the FEM for EM simulations (pg. 511 left side column); produce continuous variations in the EM responses with respect to the continuous changes in the values of the geometrical design variables (See: pg. 511 left side column).
Webb et al (“Design Sensitivity of Frequency Response in 3-D Finite-Element Analysis of Microwave Devices”, pgs. 1109-1112, 2002) teaches computing these sensitivities over a whole range of frequencies in an efficient way, by solving at just one frequency and employing a Padé expansion in the complex frequency (Abstract); obtain the first moments of the scattering parameters at that frequency and use them in a (truncated) Taylor series (pg. 111o left side column); determining the sensitivity of scattering parameters of a microwave device to changes in its design parameters, not just at one frequency but over a whole frequency range (See: pg. 1112 left side column).
Sadegh et al (“Analytical Adjoint Sensitivity Formula for the Scattering Parameters of Metallic Structures”, pgs. 2713-2722, 2012) use the self-adjoint sensitivity formulas (38) or (39) to obtain the -parameter derivatives with respect to metallic shape parameters and then compare those with reference sensitivity curves (See: pg. 2719, left side column).
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitations of:
“ transforming a single-size system matrix with a dimension of NxN into a double-size system matrix with a dimension of 2Nx2N for omitting second order terms of frequency, wherein N represents a number of elements in a field vector and the single-size system matrix is of a linear combination of global finite-element system matrices; generating a first linear system using the double-size system matrix; representing solving vectors of the first linear system with the global finite-element system matrices using the block matrix inversion method and transforming the first linear system into a second linear system, wherein the second linear system is of the single-size system matrix; and solving the second linear system by performing fast frequency sweep incorporated with MPVL method and obtaining field solution in a frequency range as the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
29
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where s represents a frequency; so represents a pre-solution frequency; q is a reduced order in MPVL method; Xkis a vector of field solution under excitation at port k; x4 represents a vector of qth order reduced field solution under excitation at port k; ro represents a solution vector of the first linear system at 0thMPVL iteration; V7 is represented as V=[vm]=[V1v2---vq], where vm is an orthonormal basis vector of the Krylov subspace for model order reduction; Iq is an identity matrix with a dimension of qxq; T7 is a reduced order matrix; and e1 is represented as e1 = [1 0---0]T with a dimension of 1xq” as recited in claim 1,
“ selecting a solution and updating EM device design to replace the one of the physical parameters of the EM device with the selected solution; performing EM simulation for the EM device at a frequency of the selected solution using FEM; and determining the simulated result satisfies a physical specification of the EM device; wherein the adjoint sensitivity formula is written as
PNG
media_image2.png
48
225
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where x represents a vector of the field solution under excitation at port j; Gi represents a derivative of G with respect to Oi;Ci represents a derivative of C with respect to Oi;s is a frequency; xk represents a transpose vector of the adjoint field solution between port j and port k;Skj represents the S-parameter of port j and port k; and j represents an ith one of the physical parameters” as recited in claim 2,
“selecting a solution and updating EM device design to replace initial values of the physical parameters of the EM device with the selected solution; performing EM simulation for the EM device at a frequency of the selected solution using FEM; and determining the simulated result satisfies a physical specification of the EM device; wherein the self-adjoint sensitivity formula is written as
PNG
media_image3.png
48
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where x represents a vector of the field solution under excitation at port j; Gi represents a derivative of G with respect to Oi;Ci represents a derivative of C with respect to Oi;s is a frequency; xkrepresents a transpose vector of the field solution under excitation at port k; S,j represents the S-parameter of port j and port k; represents an ith one of the physical parameters; and Kkj represents a correlated coefficient of port j and port k” as recited in claim 3,
“transforming a single-size system matrix with a dimension of NxN into a double-size system matrix with a dimension of 2Nx2N for omitting second order terms of frequency, wherein N represents the number of elements in a field vector and the single-size system matrix comprises a linear combination of global finite-element system matrices; generating a first linear system using the double-size system matrix; representing solving vectors of the first linear system with the global finite-element system matrices using block matrix inversion method and transforming the first linear system into a second linear system, wherein the second linear system is of the single-size system matrix; and solving the second linear system by performing fast frequency sweep incorporated with MPVL method and obtaining a field solution in a frequency range by the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
30
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the adjoint sensitivity formula is written as:
PNG
media_image5.png
48
229
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where s represents a frequency; sorepresents a pre-solution frequency; q is a reduced order in MPVL method; Xkis a vector of field solution under excitation at port k; xk represents a vector of qth order reduced field solution under excitation at port k; ro represents a solution vector of the first linear system at 0thMPVL iteration; Vk is represented as V=[Vm]q=[V1v2--vq], where vmis an orthonormal basis vector of the Krylov subspace for model order reduction; Iq is an identity matrix with a dimension of qxq; Tk is a reduced order matrix; e1 is represented as e1 = [1 0---0]T with a dimension of 1xq;Gi represents a derivative of G with respect to Oi;Ci represents a derivative of C with respect to Oi;xk represents a transpose vector of qth order reduced adjoint field solution between port j and port k; Skj represents the S-parameter of port j and port k; and represents an ith one of the physical parameters” as recited in claim 4, and
“transforming a single-size system matrix with a dimension of NxN into a double-size system matrix with a dimension of 2Nx2N for omitting second order terms of frequency, wherein N represents the number of elements in a field vector and the single-size system matrix comprises a linear combination of global finite-element system matrices; generating a first linear system using the double-size system matrix; representing solving vectors of the first linear system with the global finite-element system matrices using block matrix inversion method and transforming the first linear system into a second linear system, wherein the second linear system is of the single-size system matrix; and solving the second linear system by performing fast frequency sweep incorporated with MPVL method and obtaining field solution of the EM device in a frequency range as the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
29
360
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and the self-adjoint sensitivity formula is written as
PNG
media_image7.png
48
258
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where s represents a frequency; so represents a pre-solution frequency; q is a reduced order in MPVL method; Xkis a vector of the field solution under excitation at port k; x4 represents qth order reduced solution vector under excitation at port k; ro represents a solution vector of the first linear system at 0thMPVL iteration; V is represented as V=[vm]=[V1v2---vq], where vm is an orthonormal basis vector of the Krylov subspace for model order reduction; Iq is an identity matrix with a dimension of qxq; Tk is a reduced order matrix; e1 is represented as e1 = [1 0---0]T with a dimension of 1xq;xq represents qth order reduced solution vector under excitation at port j;Gi represents a derivative of G with respect to Oi;Ci represents a derivative of C with respect to Oi;xk represents a transpose vector of qth order reduced field solution under excitation at port k; Skj represents the S-parameter of port j and port k; represents an ith one of the physical parameters; and Kk,j represents a correlated coefficient of port j and port k” as recited in claim 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 11/06/2025