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 .
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 and 21-22 are allowed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments in regards to claims 1 and 11 are persuasive, and the previous grounds for rejection are withdrawn.
In view of the current amendment, the claims are understood to recite: eligible subject matter, which improves the functioning of a processor, and a “two-tiered stochastic model” that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that prior art fails to disclose the claimed “stop condition”, the examiner disagrees.
Attention is brought to column 9, line 44 to column 10, line 51, of the reference to Grichnik, wherein a computational model of a product is optimized to obtain desired product outcomes, and wherein the “process may continue until the generic algorithm converges and a desired set of values of the input parameters is identified”. Further, column 11, lines 6-19 explicitly discloses the method wherein an engineer can vary the values of the input parameters to optimize a product design model, and the engineer can stop the re-optimization process when a final design decision is made.
Further, applying thresholds, iteration limits and/or accuracy ranges to an algorithm, is well-known, routine and conventional to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a generic computer processor which performs a mathematical data gathering simulation based upon: “input properties” and “input parameters”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “providing one or more input properties” and “providing one or more input parameters” are generic data gathering steps. Further, the claimed data gathering steps merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed “providing one or more input properties” and “providing one or more input parameters” are generic, and are not tied to any particular method or apparatus to “provide” the claimed properties and parameters. Further, merely retrieving data and performing a mathematical simulation is well-understood, routine and conventional subject matter in the art (MPEP 2106.05).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,831,416 to Grichnik et al., in view of US Publication 2014/0254017 to Manoharan et al.
In regards to claim 20, Grichnik discloses and shows a system and method for:
providing, to a processor (102) of a simulation system (100), one or more target properties of a product (col. 3, ll. 52 to col. 4, ll. 25; wherein input parameters may include “dimensions, tolerances, moments of inertia, mass, material, or any other characteristic affecting one or more properties of the product”) (col. 11, ll. 6-19);
providing, to the processor, one or more input parameters for an optical simulation of the product (col. 4, ll. 7-65; wherein the product data may include a plurality of “input variables”) (col. 2, ll. 26 to col. 3, ll. 17; wherein the data can also include a plurality of sets of constraints) (col. 11, ll. 6-19);
performing, by the processor, the optical simulation by applying an evolutionary algorithm (col. 4, ll. 45 to col. 5, ll. 9; wherein the product data may include “simulation data used to observe and optimize the process models associated with the product design”, and wherein the data may include “a plurality of sets of random values” for various input variables (applicant’s evolutionary algorithm)) (col. 9, ll. 43-66); and
determining, by the processor, and from the optical simulation, an output design parameter (col. 4, ll. 56 to col. 5, ll. 9; wherein a simulation algorithm generates one or more output parameters related to the input properties, the input variables and the sets of constraints) (col. 10, ll. 52-68),
by stopping the evolutionary algorithm upon satisfying a stop condition (col. 9, ll. 44 to col. 10, ll. 51; wherein a computational model is optimized to obtain desired product outcomes, and wherein the “process may continue until the generic algorithm converges and a desired set of values of the input parameters is identified”), wherein the stop condition comprises one of performing a predetermined number of iterations, elapsing of a predetermined amount of time, a predefined threshold of a rate of change of an objective function, a determination of stagnation of the objective function over a predefined number of iterations, or a threshold value of the objective function (col. 9, ll. 44 to col. 10, ll. 51; wherein a computational model is optimized to obtain desired product outcomes, and wherein the “process may continue until the generic algorithm converges and a desired set of values of the input parameters is identified”) (col. 11, ll. 6-19; wherein an engineer can vary the values of the input parameters to optimize a product design model, and the engineer can stop the re-optimization process when a final design decision is made).
Grichnik differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method, wherein the one or more input parameters: affects one or more phenomena of visible light, and includes one or more boundary conditions including a spherical boundary condition, wherein each of the one or more target properties is indicative of a desired optical property of an array of nanoparticles, the array of nanoparticles being a part of a bulk material, wherein the bulk material includes at least one microparticle containing the array of nanoparticles; wherein the evolutionary algorithm is according to the one or more target properties and one or more input parameters, wherein the evolutionary algorithm employs an optical simulation of the array of nanoparticles, and wherein the optical simulation accounts for properties of light as applied to the bulk material; and an output design parameter is indicative of one or more properties of the array of nanoparticles.
However, Manoharan teaches and shows in Figures 1a-1b, a system and method for producing photonic materials having angularly-independent structural color (par. 6), wherein a photonic assembly (par. 23), comprising a plurality of micro-structured photonic droplets (100), containing a plurality of nanoparticles (110) is provided; and wherein various parameters of the photonic droplets and the parameters of the nanoparticles are selected to produce bulk materials with a desired structural color (par. 4, 6-27, 49-52, 57; wherein shell thickness, diameter, size and wavelength range of interest are all selected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Grichnik to produce the photonic assembly discussed above for the advantage of providing computer aided design and optimization of a desired photonic material product, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 and 21-22 are allowed.
As to claims 1 and 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, a system and method for “producing a bulk material and determining a color thereof”, wherein a processor performs a modeling simulation including a plurality of input properties for multiple arrays of nanoparticles and microspheres, to determine a structural color of a bulk material, wherein the simulation includes “a two-tiered stochastic model including a first tier corresponding to microspheres and a second tier corresponding to nanoparticles”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877