DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2023, 09/16/2024 & 12/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Examiner notes that Foreign Cite No. 1 from the IDS dated 02/23/2023 was able to be fully considered because a full English language translation was provided. However, Examiner is informing Applicant that the first page (including the EPO abstract) is not legible because all of the text is squished together (and overlaps).
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: 106 (from “smart node or repeater 106 at location B” in Para. [0032] of specification). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “determine at least one of: (i) a new design rule, (ii) an effect of a design choice on value of the architecture; (iii) how a technology imparts value; and (iv) a strategy for subsequent patent planning”. The only portions of the specification (four total) that mention “patent” appear to simply recite the same language as quoted above. The other options have the same issues with lack of explanation of how these determinations occur in the specification.
Claims 13 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “determine at least one of: (i) a new design rule, (ii) an effect of a design choice on value of the architecture; (iii) how a technology imparts value; and (iv) a strategy for subsequent patent planning”. It is indefinite and not clear how each of these determinations are made. That is, it is not clear how a new design rule is determined, it is not clear how an effect of a design choice on value of the architecture is determined, it is not clear how a technology imparts value is determined, and it is not clear how a strategy for subsequent patent planning is determined. Regarding the strategy for patent planning, the only portions of the specification (four total) that mention “patent” appear to simply recite the same language above. The other options have the same issues with lack of explanation of how these determinations occur.
Claims 13 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the same reasons.
For compact prosecution, Examiner has broadly interpreted the limitations without consideration of the implementation details, which is represented within the mapping of the claims under the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 1-20 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1-14 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 15-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A system for designing a microwave communication and/or power system for an application, comprising: a processor configured to:
obtain a design parameter for the application;
determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture;
determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures; and
determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric.
The limitations “determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture”, “determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures” and “determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could draw/determine two candidate network architectures (e.g., FIGS. 1 and 2) for a vehicle space/application, determine/identify a value metric (e.g., cost) for the candidate architectures, and identify/determine one of the two candidates based on cost (the value metric).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for designing a microwave communication and/or power system for an application” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of microwave communication(s) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “a processor configured to” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “obtain a design parameter for the application” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “for designing a microwave communication and/or power system for an application”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of microwave communication(s). For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements is the generic computer components (“processor”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The third type of additional elements (“obtain a design parameter for the application”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-7 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 8 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
8. A computer network and/or power system, comprising: a processor configured to:
obtain a design parameter for an application for a microwave communication and/or power system;
determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture;
determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures; and
determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric.
The limitations “determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture”, “determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures” and “determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could draw/determine two candidate network architectures (e.g., FIGS. 1 and 2) for a vehicle space/application, determine/identify a value metric (e.g., cost) for the candidate architectures, and identify/determine one of the two candidates based on cost (the value metric).
Claim 8 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “computer network and/or power system” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computer network communication(s) and/or power (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “a processor configured to” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “obtain a design parameter for an application for a microwave communication and/or power system” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “computer network and/or power system”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computer network communication(s) and/or power.
The second type of additional elements is the generic computer components (“processor”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The third type of additional elements (“obtain a design parameter for an application”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 8 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 9-14 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 15 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A method of designing a communication system for a design space, comprising:
obtaining a design parameter for an application;
determining a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture;
determining a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures; and
determining a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric.
The limitations “determining a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture”, “determining a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures” and “determining a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could draw/determine two candidate network architectures (e.g., FIGS. 1 and 2) for a vehicle space/application, determine/identify a value metric (e.g., cost) for the candidate architectures, and identify/determine one of the two candidates based on cost (the value metric).
Claim 15 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “designing a communication system for a design space” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of communication(s) design (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “obtaining a design parameter for an application” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “designing a communication system for a design space”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of communication(s) design. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements (“obtaining a design parameter for an application”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 15 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 16-20 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20
Regarding claims 2-7, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the processor is further configured to access a database including types of components and waveguides for the microwave communication and/or power system and create the plurality of architectures using a subset of the plurality of types of components and waveguides that comply with at least one of: (i) microwave communication design rules; and (ii) power network design rules”, claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein the processor is further configured to determine the value metric for an architecture based on attributes and design variables of the components and waveguides used in the architecture”, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “wherein the processor is further configured to compute an objective function for the plurality of architectures based on a function of the value metrics for the plurality of architectures and determine the objective function to find the reduced set of architectures based on requirements of the application”, claim 5 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “wherein the attribute of the component or waveguide is one of: (i) a discrete attribute; (ii) a continuous attribute; and (iii) a hybrid attribute”, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the processor is further configured to select a group of architectures from the plurality of architectures and determine at least one of: (i) a new design rule, (ii) an effect of a design choice on value of the architecture; (iii) how a technology imparts value; and (iv) a strategy for subsequent patent planning” and claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the processor is further configured to operate at least one of: (i) an intelligent reasoning module; (ii) a model-based system engineering module that performs an optimization procedure; and (iii) a learning and interpretation module”.
These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the human’s mental activity (e.g., with pen and paper) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., computing an objective function). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). Additionally, the configuring of the processor is the generic computer components, as previously discussed, and the accessing of a database is considered to further clarify the details of the insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-7 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 9 and 16 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 17 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 18 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 19 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROFOUGARAN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0237255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ROFOUGARAN discloses a system for designing a microwave communication and/or power system for an application (use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN; See also Paras. [0163] & [0164] of ROFOUGARAN), comprising: a processor (modules and components herein, can be implemented by processors, Para. [0199] of ROFOUGARAN) configured to: obtain a design parameter for the application (the controller (e.g., 172 of FIG. 17) receives parameters for an inter-chip MMW communication link … the parameters may include average bit rate, maximum burst bit rate, minimum bit rate, maximum average bit error rate, latency, RF range, duty cycle, channel access method, channelization, RF bandwidth, channel protocol, Para. [0161] of ROFOUGARAN; See also the parameters are interpreted to determine operations requirements, Para. [0162] of ROFOUGARAN; [the parameters corresponding to operational requirements are interpreted as corresponding to design/configuration parameters for an application/operation]); determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture (FIG. 26 is a diagram of an example graph of range of operational requirements and configuration options … the graph includes a horizontal axis of estimated path loss and a vertical axis of capacity … in this example, estimated path loss relates generally to the reliability of link that is based on factors such as distance of the RF path between transmitter and receiver, RF path medium (e.g., air, waveguide, dielectric), and channel impairments, Para. [0166] of ROFOUGARAN; [the configuration options are interpreted as corresponding to the plurality of architectures]); determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures (the estimated path loss and/or capacity (shown in FIG. 26 of ROFOUGARAN), which is provided for each of Options A-F; [estimated path loss and/or capacity is interpreted as corresponding to a value metric]); and determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric (the controller selects one of the multiple configuration options based on capacity of a current or near-current use of the shared dedicated inter-chip MMW communication link … for example, configuration options D 304 and E 306 compare favorably with the shared dedicated link range 294 … Option E may be selected since option E has more current capacity (e.g., link throughput in bps) than option D, Para. [0182] of ROFOUGARAN; [Options D and E are a reduced set of architectures/configurations compared to Options A-E]).
Regarding claim 2, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to access a database including types of components and waveguides for the microwave communication and/or power system (configuration options of the MMW transceiver and the configurable antenna structure including options of link type, a plurality of antenna elements, a plurality of interconnecting elements including waveguide communication path options and antenna type options, Para. [0163] of ROFOUGARAN) and create the plurality of architectures using a subset of the plurality of types of components and waveguides (configuration options in Para. [0163] of ROFOUGARAN is also referenced in the Options A-E of FIG. 26 and Para. [0182] of ROFOUGARAN discussed in claim 1 mapping) that comply with at least one of: (i) microwave communication design rules; and (ii) power network design rules (wireless communication systems may operate in accordance with one or more standards including, but not limited to, IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, global system for mobile communications (GSM), enhanced data rates for GSM evolution (EDGE), universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS), long term evolution (LTE), IEEE 802.16, evolution data optimized (EV-DO), and/or variations thereof, Para. [0008] of ROFOUGARAN).
Regarding claim 3, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the value metric for an architecture based on attributes and design variables of the components and waveguides used in the architecture (the controller compares the range of operational requirements with configuration options of the MMW transceiver and the configurable antenna structure … the configuration options of the MMW transceiver includes options of coding, carrier frequency, symbols, transmit power, channel access, receiver sensitivity, link type, bandwidth, transmitter duty cycle, and/or other options to configure the transceiver … the configurable antenna structure includes a plurality of antenna elements and a plurality of interconnecting elements, where the configurable antenna structure options relates to different antenna configurations and includes in air direction radiation pattern options, waveguide communication path options, dielectric communication path options, antenna gain options, antenna center frequency options, antenna bandwidth options, and antenna type options. For example, the antenna structure may be configured into one or more dipole antennas, one or more monopole antennas, one or more meandering trace antennas, antenna array, active beamforming, and/or any other antenna configuration that will result in a desired radiation pattern, Para. [0163] of ROFOUGARAN).
Regarding claim 4, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to compute an objective function for the plurality of architectures based on a function of the value metrics for the plurality of architectures and determine the objective function to find the reduced set of architectures based on requirements of the application (controller 172 may further use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN).
Regarding claim 5, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the attribute of the component or waveguide is one of: (i) a discrete attribute; (ii) a continuous attribute; and (iii) a hybrid attribute (waveguide communication path options and antenna type options, Para. [0163] of ROFOUGARAN; [one of a discrete, continuous or hybrid attribute is interpreted as covering either of discrete or continuous type attribute]).
Regarding claim 6, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to select a group of architectures from the plurality of architectures and determine at least one of: (i) a new design rule, (ii) an effect of a design choice on value of the architecture; (iii) how a technology imparts value; and (iv) a strategy for subsequent patent planning (Regarding “how a technology imparts value”, ROFOUGARAN teaches; controller 172 may further use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN).
Regarding claim 7, ROFOUGARAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to operate at least one of: (i) an intelligent reasoning module; (ii) a model-based system engineering module that performs an optimization procedure; and (iii) a learning and interpretation module (Regarding an optimization procedure: ROFOUGARAN teaches controller 172 may further use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN).
Regarding claim 8, ROFOUGARAN teaches a computer network and/or power system (use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN; See also Paras. [0163] & [0164] of ROFOUGARAN), comprising: a processor (modules and components herein, can be implemented by processors, Para. [0199] of ROFOUGARAN) configured to: obtain a design parameter for an application for a microwave communication and/or power system (the controller (e.g., 172 of FIG. 17) receives parameters for an inter-chip MMW communication link … the parameters may include average bit rate, maximum burst bit rate, minimum bit rate, maximum average bit error rate, latency, RF range, duty cycle, channel access method, channelization, RF bandwidth, channel protocol, Para. [0161] of ROFOUGARAN; See also the parameters are interpreted to determine operations requirements, Para. [0162] of ROFOUGARAN; [the parameters corresponding to operational requirements are interpreted as corresponding to design/configuration parameters for an application/operation]); determine a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture (FIG. 26 is a diagram of an example graph of range of operational requirements and configuration options … the graph includes a horizontal axis of estimated path loss and a vertical axis of capacity … in this example, estimated path loss relates generally to the reliability of link that is based on factors such as distance of the RF path between transmitter and receiver, RF path medium (e.g., air, waveguide, dielectric), and channel impairments, Para. [0166] of ROFOUGARAN; [the configuration options are interpreted as corresponding to the plurality of architectures]); determine a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures (the estimated path loss and/or capacity (shown in FIG. 26 of ROFOUGARAN), which is provided for each of Options A-F; [estimated path loss and/or capacity is interpreted as corresponding to a value metric]); and determine a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric (the controller selects one of the multiple configuration options based on capacity of a current or near-current use of the shared dedicated inter-chip MMW communication link … for example, configuration options D 304 and E 306 compare favorably with the shared dedicated link range 294 … Option E may be selected since option E has more current capacity (e.g., link throughput in bps) than option D, Para. [0182] of ROFOUGARAN; [Options D and E are a reduced set of architectures/configurations compared to Options A-E]).
Regarding claim 15, ROFOUGARAN teaches a method of designing a communication system for a design space (use priorities in determining MMW resource allocation … such priorities may specify specific sets of resource configurations to produce a desired prioritization objective such as favoring minimal spectrum utilization while compromising on interference levels, or favoring minimum interference levels while compromising on spectrum utilization, or favoring maximum link speeds while compromising on spectrum utilization, and/or any other scheme to favor a particular outcome, Para. [0160] of ROFOUGARAN; See also Paras. [0163] & [0164] of ROFOUGARAN), comprising: obtaining a design parameter for an application (the controller (e.g., 172 of FIG. 17) receives parameters for an inter-chip MMW communication link … the parameters may include average bit rate, maximum burst bit rate, minimum bit rate, maximum average bit error rate, latency, RF range, duty cycle, channel access method, channelization, RF bandwidth, channel protocol, Para. [0161] of ROFOUGARAN; See also the parameters are interpreted to determine operations requirements, Para. [0162] of ROFOUGARAN; [the parameters corresponding to operational requirements are interpreted as corresponding to design/configuration parameters for an application/operation]); determining a plurality of architectures for the application based on the design parameter and an attribute of a component or waveguide of the architecture (FIG. 26 is a diagram of an example graph of range of operational requirements and configuration options … the graph includes a horizontal axis of estimated path loss and a vertical axis of capacity … in this example, estimated path loss relates generally to the reliability of link that is based on factors such as distance of the RF path between transmitter and receiver, RF path medium (e.g., air, waveguide, dielectric), and channel impairments, Para. [0166] of ROFOUGARAN; [the configuration options are interpreted as corresponding to the plurality of architectures]); determining a value metric for each of the plurality of architectures (the estimated path loss and/or capacity (shown in FIG. 26 of ROFOUGARAN), which is provided for each of Options A-F; [estimated path loss and/or capacity is interpreted as corresponding to a value metric]); and determining a reduced set of architectures for the application from the plurality of architecture based on the value metric (the controller selects one of the multiple configuration options based on capacity of a current or near-current use of the shared dedicated inter-chip MMW communication link … for example, configuration options D 304 and E 306 compare favorably with the shared dedicated link range 294 … Option E may be selected since option E has more current capacity (e.g., link throughput in bps) than option D, Para. [0182] of ROFOUGARAN; [Options D and E are a reduced set of architectures/configurations compared to Options A-E]).
Claims 9 and 16 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 17 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 18 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 19 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 20 have substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
GINIS et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0110001 A1) teaches “a goal of system design is to keep such inter-cell interference sufficiently low”, Para. [0007] of GINIS and “the selection of a location involves a sequential search thru the entire list of candidate locations. In one embodiment, the process at 920 involves iterating over each and every parcel of land (i.e., candidate base-station “locations”) to choose or find the best position for putting an antenna at that (i.e., inside or within the) location, for example, where exactly on the roof should one assume that the base-station antenna will be placed”, Para. [0146] of GINIS.
BROODNEY et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0188752 teaches, at Abstract, “attribute set is associated with a plurality of the components in the system model, and based on a third input received that includes calculation parameters, one or more calculations are defined that include one or more of the attributes over the plurality of the components, thereby defining a metric for the system model”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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 on (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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights