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
The preliminary amendment filed 12/22/2022 has been entered. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 5-6, 9-10 are amended. New claims 11-21 are added. Claims 1-7,9-21 are pending in the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-7, 9-21 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite “determining a size of a shelter unit according to the simulation result and a phase stability indication;”. It is unclear what is the size of a shelter unit since “size” often conveys the overall extent, volume or capacity of an object without detailing its specific measurements. For example, “size” can be qualitative (e.g., small, medium, large) or quantitative (e.g., 5 meters, 10 kilograms). Examiner propose to amend the “size” to “dimension” which normally is used for the measurable extents of an object in specific directions, typically expressed as length, width, and height.
Therefore, the claims have an indefinite scope. Since dependent claims are dependent on the independent claims and included all the limitations of the independent claims, the dependent claims recite the indefinite scope in the independent claims.
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 1-7, 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed to processes.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites
simulating a high frequency circuit model through simulation software to obtain a simulation result; (mere instructions to apply an exception)
and determining a size of a shelter unit according to the simulation result and a phase stability indication; (mental process)
wherein the shelter unit is a circuit unit in the high frequency circuit model. (data description)
The claimed concept is a method of determining shelter unit based on simulation result directed to “Mental Process” grouping. Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
Recitations of “simulating a high frequency circuit model through simulation software to obtain a simulation result;” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) and (3). For example, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
The claim did not recite additional elements. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See applicant’s specification [063] Fig. 8 for generic computer description.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two applies here in 2B. The present claim does not recite any limitation that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 1. See below.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the phase stability indication comprises a first input pole being same as a second input pole; (data description)
wherein the first input pole is an input pole when a switch turns on a field-effect transistor, the second input pole is an input pole when the switch turns on the shelter unit, and the switch and the field-effect transistor are circuit units in the high frequency circuit model. (mental process)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first input pole is win2, and win2 is determined by a first formula, wherein the first formula is:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Rs and RD are resistors in the high frequency circuit model, CGS2 and CGD2 are capacitors in the high frequency circuit model, and gm2 is a transconductance coefficient. (math concept)
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the second input pole is win1, and win1 is determined by a second formula, wherein the second formula is:
PNG
media_image2.png
66
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Rs is a resistor in the high frequency circuit model, and CGS1 and CGD1 are capacitors in the high frequency circuit model. (math concept)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the size of the shelter unit according to the simulation result and the phase stability indication comprises:
determining a simulation parameter which is the closest to the phase stability indication among simulation parameters corresponding to simulation results of a preset number of simulations; taking the closest simulation parameter as a target parameter; and determining the size of the shelter unit according to the target parameter. (mental process)
6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the size of the shelter unit according to the simulation result and the phase stability indication comprises: in a preset number of simulations, determining, in a case where an error between a simulation parameter corresponding to a current simulation result and the phase stability indication satisfies an error threshold, the simulation parameter corresponding to the current simulation result as a target parameter; and determining the size of the shelter unit according to the target parameter. (mental process)
7. The method of claim 1, wherein in a case where the shelter unit is a plurality of sub-units, the method further comprises: automatically detecting and matching a component in each of the plurality of sub-units. (generic computer function and mental process)
Similar reason for claims 11-16 which are the same as dependent claims above. Same conclusion for independent claims 9 and 10 and dependent claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claims 1-7, 9-21 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 2007/0233443 A1), hereinafter Lai, in view of
Claim 1. A shelter unit determining method, comprising:
Lai discloses simulating a high frequency circuit model through simulation software to obtain a simulation result; and
Lai: [0015] “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing the application and object-oriented component model of the computer-aided ultrahigh-frequency circuit model simulation system according to the invention (which is here encapsulated in a dotted block indicated by the reference numeral 100). …”
[0020] “The simulation result output module 130 is capable of outputting a set of operating characteristics data 303 obtained by the design parameter processing module 120 through the simulation result display area 240 of the graphic interface 200 displayed on the monitor screen 11 of the computer platform 10…”
Lai discloses determining a size of a shelter unit according to the simulation result; wherein the shelter unit is a circuit unit in the high frequency circuit model.
Lai: [0018] “The simulation result display area 240 is used to display the simulation result, which is a set of data showing the simulated operating characteristics of the user-selected circuit model. In the example of FIG. 2, it is assumed that the user-selected circuit model is a pair of ultrahigh-frequency transmission lines. In this case, the design parameters input area 230 displays two data input areas, a dimensional parameter input area 231 and a gap width input area 232; wherein the dimensional parameter input area 231 is used to input a set of dimension-related parameters about the geometrical structure of the transmission line pair, which include height H of the first dielectric layer, height H1 of the second dielectric layer, width W of the bottom side, width W of the top side, line thickness T, thickness T1 of the first plane, thickness 72 of the second plane, and so on; while the gap width input area 232 is used to input a set of design parameters related to the line gap of the transmission line pair (which is related to the crosstalk effect in the operating characteristics of the transmission line pair).”
Lai does not appear to explicitly disclose a phase stability indication
However, Shinichi discloses a phase stability indication on [0046] “FIGS. 5 and 6 are graphs illustrating the simulation result of the gain phase-frequency characteristics and the PSRR characteristics in the conventional circuit, where the current is high. The curves 51, 52, 53 indicate the gain characteristics of Vout, and the curves 54, 55, 56 indicate the phase characteristics. The curves 61, 62, 63 indicate the PSRR characteristics. The curves 51, 54, 61 indicate the case where the operating current is 100 .mu.A or more. The curves 52, 55, 62 indicate the case where the operating current is 2 .mu.A or less. A phase margin is an index for measuring the stability of a circuit, and it is defined as a phase difference from 180 when the gain is 1. It is said that the phase margin of more than 40 degrees from the 180-degree phase at the frequency with the gain of 1 means a good stability, and there is no oscillation. The gain margin is also an index of the stability of the circuit. It is defined as a reduction ratio of the gain in case the phase of the output signal is delayed by 180 degrees. It is said that, if the gain is reduced by more than 12 dB at the frequency, when the phase of the output is delayed by 180 degrees, it means good stability with no oscillation. The phase margin will be examined below.”
Lai and Shinichi are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” circuit simulation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lai and Shinichi before him or her, to modify the model of Lai to include the circuit simulation characteristic of Shinichi because this combination provides better understanding of the result.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Shinichi [0070] “In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the present invention has the technical object of providing a ripple rejection circuit having a simple and clear design theory with excellent stability, said circuit having the feature that the various characteristics are not degraded even by decreasing the operating current to {fraction (1/100)} or less of the conventional operating current and the circuit is not complicated.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lai and Shinichi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Regarding Claim 9-10, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7, 11-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Geha et al (US 20190074802 A1) teach a method of design an improved low noise amplifier with wideband characteristics, high linearity and low power consumption.
Lai et al (US 20070233443 A1) teach a computer-aided ultrahigh-frequency circuit model simulation method and system is proposed, which is designed for use in conjunction with a computer platform for providing a user-operated ultrahigh-frequency circuit model simulation function, which is characterized by the provision of a graphic interface that allows the user to select a desired circuit model and input a set of design parameters about the selected circuit model, and whereupon a set of operating characteristics data can be automatically determined through simulation.
Clif Fonstad (NPL: Lecture 23 -Circuits at High Frequencies, 2009) teach a basis design of circuits at high frequencies base on mathematical expressions.
Tang et al (NPL: A Low Power Class-AB Audio Power Amplifier With Dynamic Transconductance Compensation in 55 nm CMOS Process, 2016) teach a Class-AB audio power amplifier with state-of-the-art power efficiency and performance. The second stage transconductance of the three-stage power amplifier can be dynamically compensated, in order to automatically adjust the amplifier pole according to the operating condition of the output stage.
These references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record fail to disclose limitations, including:
Claims 2 and 17: “wherein the phase stability indication comprises a first input pole being same as a second input pole; wherein the first input pole is an input pole when a switch turns on a field-effect transistor, the second input pole is an input pole when the switch turns on the shelter unit, and the switch and the field-effect transistor are circuit units in the high frequency circuit model.”
Claims 5 and 20: “wherein determining the size of the shelter unit according to the simulation result and the phase stability indication comprises:
determining a simulation parameter which is the closest to the phase stability indication among simulation parameters corresponding to simulation results of a preset number of simulations; taking the closest simulation parameter as a target parameter; and determining the size of the shelter unit according to the target parameter.
Claims 6 and 21: wherein determining the size of the shelter unit according to the simulation result and the phase stability indication comprises: in a preset number of simulations, determining, in a case where an error between a simulation parameter corresponding to a current simulation result and the phase stability indication satisfies an error threshold, the simulation parameter corresponding to the current simulation result as a target parameter; and determining the size of the shelter unit according to the target parameter.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein in a case where the shelter unit is a plurality of sub-units, the method further comprises: automatically detecting and matching a component in each of the plurality of sub-units.
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUEN-MEEI GAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm EST.
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.
/CHUEN-MEEI GAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights