DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1- 1 0 have been presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. PRIORITY 3 . Acknowledgment is made that this application is a CIP of PCT/JP2022/029867 filed 08/03/2022. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) JAPAN 2021-128634 filed 08/04/2021. Information Disclosure Statement 4 . The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/22 and 10/20/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS’ as to the merits. 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. 5 . Claims 1- 1 0 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. i ) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, claim 9 is directed to an article of manufacture as a computer - readable non-transitory recording medium, and claim 10 is directed to a statutory category as a process, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1- 1 0 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One , claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the abstract idea of simulating how a content is experienced by a user which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations . As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 10, t he limitation of “ a required minimum area calculating unit that calculates a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information” would be analogous to a person calculating an area based on given sizes of each component and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations . Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts . Dependent claims 2- 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two , the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 1 0 of “ a component information acquiring unit that acquires component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “ a component information acquiring unit that acquires component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” in claims 1, 9 , and 1 0 , alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Dependent claims 2- 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 1 0 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9, and 10 of “ a component information acquiring unit that acquires component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “ a component information acquiring unit that acquires component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” in claims 1, 9 , and 1 0 , alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. 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 claim 2 further define s the selection of components for the circuit which further represents the u se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claim 3 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Dependent claim 4 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Dependent claim 5 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Dependent claim 6 further defines the types of components used in the selection which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . Dependent claim 7 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Dependent claim 8 further defines a simulation of the substrate which is based on an additional mathematical calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process . This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. v) Accordingly, claims 1- 1 0 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. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: As per claim 1, “a component information acquiring unit” and “required minimum area calculating unit.” As per claim 2, “circuit component information acquiring unit” and “incorporated component selecting unit.” As per claim 8, “a thermal simulation unit.” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. 7 . Claims 1-8 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. Claim limitation a s per claim 1, “a component information acquiring unit” and “required minimum area calculating unit.” , a s per claim 2, “circuit component information acquiring unit” and “incorporated component selecting unit.” , and a s per claim 8, “a thermal simulation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification of the instant application see, “ [0065] According to the embodiments, the function of the design support apparatus 100 or 200 may be realized using hardware. Specifically, the design support apparatus 100 or 200 may include one or two or more processing circuits and the processing circuit may realize the functions of the "units." The design support apparatus 100 or 200 may be realized using a combination of software and hardware. Specifically, some of the "units" may be realized using software, and the other "units" may be realized using hardware. ” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Appropriate correction is required. All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 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. 8 . Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160299995 , hereafter Gupta . Regarding Claim 1 : The reference discloses A design support apparatus of supporting design of a component embedded substrate including one or more embedded electronic components that configure at least a part of a circuit, comprising: a component information acquiring unit that acquires component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate; and ( [0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc. Component information 150 may be received from manufacturers or suppliers in various forms, such as parts information sheets, parts catalogs, schematics, among others. The received component information 150 may be formatted and saved into the data store 145 for use in determining designs. Exemplary component information 150 may include part cost, whether the part is in stock, part dimensions and footprint, pin configuration, minimum and maximum ranges of operation, light output, heat sink requirements, efficiency information, graphs of various characteristics of operation, among other exemplary characteristics. The component information 150 includes information about the components themselves, not the components in combination with other components. The component information 150 is, or is stored in, a database. ) a required minimum area calculating unit that calculates a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information. ( [0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit. ) Regarding Claim 2 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a circuit component information acquiring unit that acquires information about circuit components to be included in the circuit from a circuit database containing information about a configuration of the circuit; and ( [0018] In another embodiment, a method includes receiving, at a computing resource, a plurality of design requirements including an input voltage value, an output voltage value, an output current, and at least one of a frequency, a soft start time value, a value indicative of maximum output voltage ripple, a value indicative of maximum inductor current ripple. The method further includes identifying a plurality of electrical components from a database that comply with the design requirements and generating a plurality of power supply designs including the identified plurality of electrical components, each design satisfying the design requirements. The method also includes transmitting the generated plurality of power supply designs. ) an incorporated component selecting unit that selects a component to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate from the circuit components, ([0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit. ) the component information acquiring unit acquiring information about one or more electronic components selected by the incorporated component selecting unit. ([0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc. Component information 150 may be received from manufacturers or suppliers in various forms, such as parts information sheets, parts catalogs, schematics, among others. The received component information 150 may be formatted and saved into the data store 145 for use in determining designs. Exemplary component information 150 may include part cost, whether the part is in stock, part dimensions and footprint, pin configuration, minimum and maximum ranges of operation, light output, heat sink requirements, efficiency information, graphs of various characteristics of operation, among other exemplary characteristics. The component information 150 includes information about the components themselves, not the components in combination with other components. The component information 150 is, or is stored in, a database.) Regarding Claim 3 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required minimum area of the component embedded substrate is calculated by using a required minimum mounting area that is derived on the basis of a component area obtained as a total of each area of the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate. ([0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit. ) Regarding Claim 4 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required minimum area is calculated by using a required minimum pad area that is derived on the basis of each area of one or more electrode pads to be mounted on the surface of the component embedded substrate. ( [0100] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to determine a PCB layout according to a predetermined landing area approach. In such an approach, a PCB layout of the design is created with a mount for a particular integrated circuit (such as an LM2678 semiconductor) and also with landing pads for various supporting components to be used with the particular IC. The landing pads may be designed to accommodate a variety of combinations of supporting components, which vary in size and shape, by creating the landing pads for the supporting components large enough and spaced closely enough to accommodate different sizes of components that may potentially be used with the IC. Thus, a single PCB board may be used to accommodate many different schematics, having various sizes and varieties of surface mount components. ) Regarding Claim 5 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the required minimum pad area is derived on the basis of geometry information containing at least information about a layer structure, a copper foil thickness, and a substrate material of a mounting board on which the component embedded substrate is to be mounted. ( [0098] The board layout module 514 may be configured to create a printed circuit board (PCB) layout according to a determined schematic, such as an electrical schematic determined by the schematic determination module 512. The board layout module 514 may determine an appropriate PCB layout according to various parameters, including the topology the circuit, the IC selected, the size of the selected components , whether the design requires a large amount of copper to dissipate heat or a heat sink to dissipate heat, and the like. ) Regarding Claim 6 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the electronic components is a power device. ([0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc. ) Regarding Claim 7 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required minimum area of the component embedded substrate is calculated by further using a required heat dissipation area of the component embedded substrate. ( [0039] … Optimization heuristics 170 may be responsive to design requirements 130 indicative of tradeoffs between various design goals, and may be utilized to prefer one or more parameters over other parameters of a component or design. Design goals to be optimized by optimization heuristics 170 may include small component footprint, efficiency, cost, thermal dissipation, and power utilized, among others. As an example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a smaller footprint may optimize for size by choosing components with relatively smaller footprints that still satisfy the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as efficiency. As another example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a higher efficiency may optimize by choosing components capable of being utilized at a relatively lower switching frequency while still satisfying the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as cost. [0122] … Other information about the power supply design 125 may be included as well, such as operating values including duty cycle, efficiency, BOM cost, BOM footprint, currents through components, and power dissipation for components. The operating values may be included in a table or as plots of the operating value vs. other facts such as load 120 current for different voltages. The report may also contain simulation results, such as from the electrical simulation module 516 and/or thermal simulation module 518, which may be represented in numeric form, tabular form such as via tabular display module 526, and/or graphical form such as via graphical display module 528 …) Regarding Claim 8 : The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a thermal simulation unit that conducts a thermal simulation on the component embedded substrate by using information about the required minimum area. ( [0039] … Optimization heuristics 170 may be responsive to design requirements 130 indicative of tradeoffs between various design goals, and may be utilized to prefer one or more parameters over other parameters of a component or design. Design goals to be optimized by optimization heuristics 170 may include small component footprint, efficiency, cost, thermal dissipation, and power utilized, among others. As an example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a smaller footprint may optimize for size by choosing components with relatively smaller footprints that still satisfy the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as efficiency. As another example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a higher efficiency may optimize by choosing components capable of being utilized at a relatively lower switching frequency while still satisfying the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as cost. [0122] …Other information about the power supply design 125 may be included as well, such as operating values including duty cycle, efficiency, BOM cost, BOM footprint, currents through components, and power dissipation for components. The operating values may be included in a table or as plots of the operating value vs. other facts such as load 120 current for different voltages. The report may also contain simulation results, such as from the electrical simulation module 516 and/or thermal simulation module 518, which may be represented in numeric form, tabular form such as via tabular display module 526, and/or graphical form such as via graphical display module 528…) Regarding Claim 9 : The reference discloses A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a procedure, the procedure that supports design of a component embedded substrate including one or more embedded electric components configuring at least a part of a circuit, the procedure comprising: acquiring component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate; and calculating a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information. (See rejection for claim 1) Regarding Claim 10 : The reference discloses A design support method of supporting design of a component embedded substrate including one or more embedded electronic components that configure at least a part of a circuit, comprising at least: acquiring component information about the electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate; and calculating a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information. (See rejection for claim 1) Conclusion 9 . All Claims are rejected. 1 0 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. i ) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110023000 which teaches generating a floorplan layout of an integrated circuit (IC) . ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100223587 which teaches integrated circuit design, and more particularly to improving the speed of chip routing for integrated circuit blocks with multiple connections . iii) U.S. Patent Publication No. A floor plan processing unit forms a floor plan for arranging a plurality of circuit blocks including a non-rectangular area into the chip. iv) Alexander, Mathew, K. Srihari, and C. Robert Emerson. "Cost based surface mount PCB design evaluation." Journal of Electronic Testing 5.2 (1994): 229-238. v) Grunow , Martin, H. O. Günther, and M. Schleusener . "Component allocation for printed circuit board assembly using modular placement machines." International Journal of Production Research 41.6 (2003): 1311-1331. (Year: 2003) vi) Jones, David L. "PCB design tutorial." June 29th (2004): 3-25. (Year: 2004) vii) Instruments, Texas. "AN-2020 Thermal Design By Insight, Not Hindsight." Texas Instruments (TI) (2013). (Year: 2013) 1 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 1 0 :00- 6:0 0. 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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). SAA /SAIF A ALHIJA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186