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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) has been considered by the Examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S500A . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S500, T2 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an objective-function value” in the second to last line when it is not the first recitation . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the candidate solutions” when the previous recitation is “the plurality of candidate solutions” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the candidate solutions” when the previous recitation is “the plurality of candidate solutions”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an objective-function value” in the second to last line when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the candidate solutions” when the previous recitation is “the plurality of candidate solutions”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the candidate solutions” when the previous recitation is “the plurality of candidate solutions”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 5 -2 8 , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a recording medium, which is directed to signals per se . The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the recording mediums to only non-transitory. Section 2106.03(I) of the MPEP states claims directed to transitory forms of signal transmission ( signals per se ) are not directed to any of the statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium.” Although the claim is not eligible under Prong 1, Examiner will continue the analysis of the claims as though they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. 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 1 5 -2 8 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 " calculating a candidate solution corresponding to a structure of the FSS filter and an objective-function value corresponding to a difference between a frequency response resulting from the candidate solution and a targeted frequency response; ” cover s mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations, or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset to determine a difference between two values . Additionally, the limitation of “ calculating an objective-function value with the trial solution to determine whether to include the trial solution in candidate solutions ” c overs 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 . 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 2-1 4 and 1 6 - 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 Claim s 1 and 15 , the additional element of “ modifying the candidate solution into a trial solution in accordance with a genetic algorithm; and ” , as well as “ a recording medium ”, in claim s 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 1 5 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 the candidate solution into a trial solution in accordance with a genetic algorithm; and ” , as well as “ a recording medium ”, in claim s 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 1 6 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 1 7 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 1 8 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 1 9 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 1-2 9 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 The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims. The closest prior art references of record are Ahmad, Ohira , Mudar, Hamming and Aguilar . These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the calculation steps that are modified by a genetic algorithm to determine if trial solutions should be included in candidate solutions after a distance is determined between a current frequency and target frequency , in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-29 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bayraktar “ OVEL META-SURFACE DESIGN SYNTHESIS VIA NATURE-INSPIRED OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS ”: Also teaches the use of a genetic algorithm in filter design, where one of the filters could be an FSS filter. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9079 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ryan Pitaro can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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