DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s amendments have resolved all rejections and issues with the sole exception of the 35 USC 101 rejections. The 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections, applicant argues the claim as amended is directed to a specific technological improvement in computational electromagnetics. This is an abstract improvement in terms of providing improved mathematical calculations though, not an improvement to computer operations or technology. The claims are argued to reduce computational cost and simulation time required by significant margins. This improvement, however, is not due to any change in how the computing system is configured. The computer components remain merely generic computer components being invoked as tools to carry out the claimed steps, equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). As noted by MPEP in that section, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive and the amendments do not render the claims eligible. The 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
An electromagnetic field simulation method based on subgridding technique and one-step alternating-direction-implicit-finite-difference time-domain (ADI-FDTD) algorithm, comprising: (this is within the statutory categories of invention. The subgridding technique and ADI-FDTD algorithm mentioned are both mathematical algorithms within the scope of mathematical relationships)
establishing an electromagnetic field simulation model of a simulation area containing a dielectric-type frequency selection surface by setting an absorption boundary condition using convolutional perfectly matched layers (CPML) in y-direction; setting a periodic boundary condition (PBC) in x-direction and z-direction to simulate an infinite periodic array; setting a total field boundary condition and a scattered field boundary to introduce a cosine-modulated incident plane wave as an excitation source; and applying the one-step ADI-FDTD algorithm combined with the subgridding technique and a FDTD algorithm; wherein the step of establishing the electromagnetic field simulation model further comprises: based on the one-step ADI-FDTD algorithm, acquiring a first coefficient matrix corresponding to a boundary form of a perfect electric conductor and a second coefficient matrix corresponding to the periodic boundary condition; and based on a structure and a dielectric constant of the dielectric-type frequency selective surface in the simulation area, respectively generating the absorption boundary condition and the periodic boundary condition according to the first coefficient matrix and the second coefficient matrix; and (boundary conditions are constraints used for solving differential equations, and setting them is equivalent to providing numerical values in a mathematical algorithm. The simulation is conducted according to mathematical equations using these boundary conditions. The link to electromagnetic fields is merely generally linking the exception to the technical field of electromagnetic radiation. The entirety of this block of claim limitations is setting forth a mathematical algorithm to be followed to calculate numerical results).
wherein the electromagnetic field simulation model is configured to set subgrids based on the simulation area, select a detection point and a detection surface according to the excitation source, (these are selected in the course of a mathematical algorithm using numerical calculations)
obtain a time-domain waveform diagram of a reflection field of the simulation area, obtain a time-domain waveform diagram of a transmission field of the simulation area and frequency-domain information of the simulation area, and (these diagrams are never noted as being displayed, only obtained. They are obtained by performing mathematical calculations according to physics equations and mathematical algorithms, and fall within the scope of mathematical relationships)
simulate an electromagnetic field field response of the dielectric-type frequency selective surface under excitation by the cosine-modulated incident plane wave. (the simulation is conducted with the above mathematical algorithms according to physics equations, and falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computer implementation of claim 10), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of electromagnetic radiation, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (if the step of obtain[ing] waveform diagrams is interpreted to include actually displaying them). The computer implementation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that diagrams are generated is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-10 recite only further details of the mathematical algorithms and calculations/equations used, and fall within the scope of mathematical relationships. Claim 10 also recites computer implementation, which is already addressed above. These claims remain ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 requires “wherein the step of “establishing an electromagnetic field simulation model” comprises: based on the one-step ADI-FDTD algorithm, acquiring a first coefficient matrix corresponding to a boundary form of a perfect electric conductor and a second coefficient matrix corresponding to the periodic boundary condition”. While the art as a whole does disclose the features of claim 1, nothing in the prior art of record discloses a one-step ADI-FDTD algorithm for simulating electromagnetic fields that uses multiple coefficient matrices for a perfect electric conductor’s boundary form and a periodic boundary condition. Liu (CN 110377954 A) can be argued to disclose coefficient matrices, but these are not for boundary conditions/forms, let alone for the specific ones claimed here. Claims 3-10 inherit these features by virtue of their dependence on claim 2. The closest prior art to this feature, as noted, is Liu (CN 110377954 A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights