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 .
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 § 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 1-20 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
accessing one or more antenna elements; (mental process)
identifying one or more parameters for an antenna that is to be formed using the accessed antenna elements; (mental process)
and assembling the antenna elements into an assembled antenna that at least partially complies with the identified parameters. (mental process)
The claimed concept is a method of determining antenna design which complies identified parameters directed to “Mental Process” grouping. These limitations can be performed in a human mind or using pen and paper.
Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
Claim 1 recites “using an artificial intelligence (AI) instance” which 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.
Note that, 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 Fig 1 [0024] for generic computer description.
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).
In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 1. See below.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the AI instance assembles the antenna elements into the assembled antenna without knowledge of other antenna architectures. (mental process)
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising accessing one or more antenna architectures and, wherein the AI instance uses the accessed antenna architectures as background knowledge when assembling the antenna elements into the assembled antenna. (mental process)
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising decomposing one or more antenna architectures to identify the one or more antenna elements. (mental process)
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein a same antenna architecture is decomposed into a plurality of different antenna elements. (mental process)
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a same set of antenna elements are assembled into a plurality of different assembled antennas. (mental process)
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of different assembled antennas are of one or more different antenna types. (mental process)
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters specify a layout size constraint for the assembled antenna. (mental process)
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters specify one or more minimum performance characteristics for the assembled antenna. (mental process)
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising optimizing the assembled antenna to improve one or more operational characteristics. (mental process)
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the AI instance accesses an indication of which operational characteristics are most significant and optimizes the assembled antenna for at least one of the indicated operational characteristics. (mental process)
Same conclusion for independent claims 12 and 20 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 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al (Multiparameter Modeling With ANN for Antenna Design, 2018), hereinafter Xiao.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
Xiao discloses accessing one or more antenna elements; identifying one or more parameters for an antenna that is to be formed using the accessed antenna elements; and
Xiao (page 3718-3719)
PNG
media_image1.png
160
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers “obtain” as “accessing” and “extract” as “identifying”.
Xiao discloses assembling the antenna elements, using an artificial intelligence (AI) instance, into an assembled antenna that at least partially complies with the identified parameters.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example)
PNG
media_image2.png
158
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
446
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers “assembling antenna elements” as defined in the applicant’s specification para [0051] which is taught in figures 5 and 6 of Xiao. Also, “using AI instance” is considered as “training and testing” (also see abstract for additional details).
Regarding Claim 12, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
In addition, Claim 12 recites “at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor”.
Xiao discloses at least one physical processor; and physical memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the physical processor (page 3720)
PNG
media_image4.png
102
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
In addition, Claim 20 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device”
Xiao discloses non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device (page 3720)
PNG
media_image4.png
102
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, Xiao discloses wherein the AI instance assembles the antenna elements into the assembled antenna without knowledge of other antenna architectures.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example”)
PNG
media_image3.png
446
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner consider the ANN training as “AI instance” and it is focusing in the design of FP resonator antenna.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising accessing one or more antenna architectures and, wherein the AI instance uses the accessed antenna architectures as background knowledge when assembling the antenna elements into the assembled antenna.
Xiao (page 3719 “B. Training Process of Branch 1”)
PNG
media_image5.png
129
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers “initial fitting vector” correspond to the AI instance uses the accessed antenna architectures as background knowledge.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising decomposing one or more antenna architectures to identify the one or more antenna elements.
Xiao (page 3719)
PNG
media_image6.png
220
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers “classify” as “decompose”.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein a same antenna architecture is decomposed into a plurality of different antenna elements.
Xiao (page 3719)
PNG
media_image6.png
220
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers “classify” as “decompose”.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a same set of antenna elements are assembled into a plurality of different assembled antennas.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example”)
PNG
media_image7.png
286
610
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers case 1 and 2 correspond to a plurality of different assembled antennas.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of different assembled antennas are of one or more different antenna types.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example)
PNG
media_image2.png
158
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters specify a layout size constraint for the assembled antenna.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example)
PNG
media_image8.png
392
608
media_image8.png
Greyscale
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters specify one or more minimum performance characteristics for the assembled antenna.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example”) See Table 1.
PNG
media_image9.png
76
606
media_image9.png
Greyscale
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising optimizing the assembled antenna to improve one or more operational characteristics.
Xiao (page 3722 “E. Application of Optimization”)
PNG
media_image10.png
330
608
media_image10.png
Greyscale
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the AI instance accesses an indication of which operational characteristics are most significant and optimizes the assembled antenna for at least one of the indicated operational characteristics.
Xiao (page 3722 “E. Application of Optimization”)
PNG
media_image11.png
316
612
media_image11.png
Greyscale
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the identified parameters limit a width and/or a height for at least one of the antenna elements and/or for the assembled antenna.
Xiao (page 3720 “Application Example)
PNG
media_image8.png
392
608
media_image8.png
Greyscale
18. The system of claim 12, wherein the assembled antenna is provided to a simulation model for a performance simulation.
Xiao (page 3721-3722) “D. Comprehensive Test”
PNG
media_image12.png
66
484
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
84
490
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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) 13, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al (Multiparameter Modeling With ANN for Antenna Design, 2018), hereinafter Xiao, in view of Koziel et al (NPL: Accurate Modeling of Antenna Structures by Means of Domain Confinement and Pyramidal Deep Neural Networks, March 2022), hereinafter Koziel.
13. The system of claim 12, Xiao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the identified parameters limit which locations one or more of the antenna elements is placeable within an electronic device.
However, Koziel disclose wherein the identified parameters limit which locations one or more of the antenna elements is placeable within an electronic device on (page 2174) “Introduction”.
PNG
media_image14.png
328
506
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Xiao and Koziel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” antenna design.
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 Xiao and Koziel before him or her, to modify the method of Xiao to include the surrogate model feature of Koziel because this combination improves the performance of the model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Koziel (page 2175).
PNG
media_image15.png
274
486
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xiao and Koziel to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
15. The system of claim 12, Xiao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the assembled antenna is analyzed by a surrogate model to identify one or more operational characteristics of the assembled antenna.
However, Koziel disclose wherein the assembled antenna is analyzed by a surrogate model to identify one or more operational characteristics of the assembled antenna on (page 2178-2179) “C. PDRN Architecture Search via BO”
PNG
media_image16.png
546
488
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Xiao and Koziel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” antenna design.
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 Xiao and Koziel before him or her, to modify the method of Xiao to include the surrogate model feature of Koziel because this combination improves the performance of the model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Koziel (page 2175)
PNG
media_image15.png
274
486
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xiao and Koziel to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the surrogate model filters one or more assembled antennas whose performance characteristics are below a minimum performance threshold value.
Koziel (page 2179)
PNG
media_image17.png
208
484
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
202
490
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Examiner considers the step of searching optimal correspond to filtering step.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the surrogate model implements a knowledge database when determining which assembled antennas to filter out.
Koziel (page 2179)
PNG
media_image18.png
202
490
media_image18.png
Greyscale
19. The system of claim 18, Xiao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein performance results from the simulation are provided to a surrogate model to inform future analyses by the surrogate model.
However, Koziel disclose wherein performance results from the simulation are provided to a surrogate model to inform future analyses by the surrogate model
on (page 2178-2179) “C. PDRN Architecture Search via BO”
PNG
media_image16.png
546
488
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Xiao and Koziel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” antenna design.
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 Xiao and Koziel before him or her, to modify the method of Xiao to include the surrogate model feature of Koziel because this combination improves the performance of the model.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Koziel (page 2175)
PNG
media_image15.png
274
486
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xiao and Koziel to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Examiner Recommendation
Examiner made proposed amendment “wherein the identified parameters limit which locations one or more of the antenna elements is placeable within an electronic device to improve the performance of the antenna; wherein the limit of the identified parameter includes allowable distance between antenna elements and other component of the electronic device;” to resolve 101 rejection and clarify potential allowable subject matter.
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