DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-29 are currently presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Drawings and Specification, the objections of the Drawings are Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the non-statutory subject matter 101 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn and the abstract idea 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-14 and 29 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-28 are directed to a recording medium, which is not a statutory category of invention. The analysis for claims 15-28 will continue below. Therefore, claims 1-14 and 29 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention, and claims 15-28 are not.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 15 recite the abstract idea of calculating values to determine if they should be included in candidate solutions, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " preparing a plurality of candidate solutions, each candidate solution being a binary sequence corresponding to an irreducible zone of the FSS filter, each digit of the binary sequence corresponding to a pixel of the irreducible zone that is either metal-filled or vacant, the irreducible zone being a minimum unit from which an entire surface of the FSS filter is reconstructed using rotational symmetry such that the FSS filter reconstructed from each candidate solution satisfies a rotational symmetry required for electromagnetic waves incident at various angles,” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations to determine if a solution at a given point meets the requirements, or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset to determine if a filter meets a set of values. The limitation of "calculating a respective candidate objective-function value for each candidate solution of the plurality of candidate solutions, each candidate objective function value corresponding to a difference between a frequency response of the FSS filter resulting from the respective candidate solution and a targeted frequency response, wherein the frequency response of the FSS filter resulting from the respective candidate solution is calculated using a three-dimensional electromagnetic numerical simulation;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations and measuring the difference between values, or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset to determine a difference between two values. Additionally, the limitation of “calculating a trial solution objective-function value with the trial solution to determine whether to include the trial solution in the plurality of candidate solutions; and” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations with a determination of if a proper solution is found if it meets a set of range criteria, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset after a calculation and making a judgement about whether to include it in a solution. Additionally, the limitation of “outputting a structure of the FSS filter corresponding to a candidate solution among the plurality of candidate solutions having a smallest objective-function value” covers mathematical concepts in the form of the solution of a series of calculations that has a smallest value, or alternatively mental processes including a judgment of what solution to write with pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-29 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1 and 15, the additional element of “modifying a selected one of the plurality of candidate solutions into a trial solution in accordance with a genetic algorithm;”, as well as “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, in claims 15-28 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-29 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1 and 15, the additional element of “modifying a selected one of the plurality of candidate solutions into a trial solution in accordance with a genetic algorithm;”, as well as “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, in claims 15-28 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 16 are directed to further defining setting of a cutoff distance after a series of calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 17 are directed to further defining the assigning of a random number to a sequence, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 18 are directed to further defining the inversion of a value, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5 and 19 are directed to further defining the use of a hamming distance, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 20 are directed to further defining the setting of a cutoff distance, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 21 are directed to further defining additional calculations and summing the results, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 22 are directed to further defining the use of mutation and crossover, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 9 and 23 are directed to further defining the inversion of a value, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 10 and 24 are directed to further defining how the crossover occurs, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 11 and 25 are directed to further defining the genetic modification of a value, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 12 and 26 are directed to further defining additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 13 and 27 are directed to further defining additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 14 and 28 are directed to further defining what is designed, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 29 is directed to further defining what is designed, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
See Non-Final Rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McKinzie III USPPN 2010/0201465: Also teaches the creation of an FSS based on cutoff frequency to meet an operation frequency of an attenuated circuit.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights