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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-12 are pending, independent claims 1, 5, 9 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8, filed 9/10/2025 with respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-12 have been fully considered but they are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues that transforming a first data structure into a second data structure thereby configuring the electromagnetic field analysis device to operate by a reduced-resource analysis goes beyond mathematical calculation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a transformation in computer processing is almost always a mathematical process, and a mathematical process is an abstract idea. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The solution to the problem, as claimed by the applicant, must recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has examined the claims and has not found any elements that fulfill this requirement. For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Fewer processor cycles" is not an abstract outcome. They are direct, measurable improvements in the physical performance of the computer hardware.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although taking fewer steps may improve the outcome of the abstract idea being performed, it is still an abstract idea that is being optimized and not the functioning of the computer. Similar to the reasoning applied in the Federal Circuit Court decision in the Electric Power Troup LLC v. Alstom S.A. case of August 1, 2016, page 8, “In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” No specific computer improvement, such as to how computers could carry out an improved version one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, is present in the claims of the instant application; therefore, the claims in the instant application are an example of an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. For at least these reasons, Applicant' s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that changing value of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero based on a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness is a specific, inventive rule that transforms the analysis process to overcome a technical hurdle, and thus overcomes the U.S.C.101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness is a mathematical relationship and is considered abstract. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The solution to the problem, as claimed by the applicant, must recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has examined the claims and has not found any elements that fulfill this requirement. For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Note
The applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define the terms “first circuit information” in the claims to mean “circuit information that specifies the dimensions of the width and the thickness of the line”, and “second circuit information” in the claims to mean “post-change circuit information that specifies width and thickness of the line in which one of the specified dimension of width or dimension of thickness is changed to zero.”
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an electromagnetic field analysis program that causes at least one computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
specifying a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring;
transforming the first circuit information, as a first data structure, into second circuit information, as a second data structure, by applying a technical rule that includes calculating a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness from the first data structure and setting the dimension one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero when the ratio exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
executing an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information with a minimum spatial discretization step for a larger step than when based on the first circuit information thereby configuring the computer to complete the analysis with fewer processor cycles than an electromagnetic field analysis based on the first circuit information..
Claim 5. An electromagnetic field analysis device comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to:
specify a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring,
transform the first circuit information, as a first data structure, into second circuit information, as a second data structure, by applying a technical rule that includes calculating a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness from the first data structure and setting the dimension one selected from the dimension of the thickness to zero when the ratio exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
execute an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information with a minimum spatial discretization step for a larger step than when based on the first circuit information, thereby configuring the computer to complete the analysis with fewer processor cycles than an electromagnetic field analysis based on the first circuit information.
Claim 9. An electromagnetic field analysis method for a computer to execute a process comprising:
specifying a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring;
transforming the first circuit information, as a first data structure, into second circuit information, as a second data structure, by applying a technical rule that includes calculating a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness from the first data structure and setting the dimension of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero when the ratio exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
executing an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information with a minimum spatial discretization step for a larger step than when based on the first circuit information, thereby configuring the computer to complete the analysis with fewer processor cycles than an electromagnetic field analysis based on the first circuit information.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a computer, and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 9, the closest prior art Buchanan, W. J. et al., ("Application of 3D Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) Method to Predict Radiation from a PCB with High Speed Pulse Propagation", Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1994., Ninth International Conference on MANCHESTER, UK, LONDON, UK, IEE, UK, XP006512632, pp. 287-291, January 1, 1994) hereinafter Buchanan and Vahabzadeh, (Generalized Sheet Transition Condition FDTD Simulation of Metasurface, 2018, IEEE, Vol 66., 271-280) teaches several limitation and their specifics are rejected below.
Regarding Claim 1, Buchanan teaches specifying a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33); generate second circuit information obtained by changing value of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33, and where “The PCB has a conducting ground plane and a single dielectric substrate with a copper layer etched for the required shape. In FDTD method these electrical conductors are assumed to be perfect and have zero thickness.” Pg 288 col 2 line 17-20, where it can be assumed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the smaller measurement in comparing width to thickness, in this case thickness, was turned to zero); execute an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information (“A 100xl00x16 grid was used as the E-field plots in the z-direction are shown in Figures 7- 16. These show the electric field plots intensity in the z. direction and are measured just above and below the copper tracks.” Pg 289 col 1 line 36-40)
Regarding Claim 5, Buchanan teaches one or more memories (“a digital computer” pg. 287 col 2, line 5, where a computer has at least one memory); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors (“a digital computer” pg. 287 col 2, line 5, where a computer has both memory and processors, of which are connected via buses and controllers) configured to: specify a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33), generate second circuit information obtained by changing value of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33, and where “The PCB has a conducting ground plane and a single dielectric substrate with a copper layer etched for the required shape. In FDTD method these electrical conductors are assumed to be perfect and have zero thickness.” Pg 288 col 2 line 17-20, where it can be assumed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the smaller measurement in comparing width to thickness, in this case thickness, was turned to zero), and execute an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information (“A 100xl00x16 grid was used as the E-field plots in the z-direction are shown in Figures 7- 16. These show the electric field plots intensity in the z. direction and are measured just above and below the copper tracks.” Pg 289 col 1 line 36-40).
Regarding Claim 9, Buchanan teaches specifying a dimension of a width of wiring included in first circuit information and a dimension of a thickness of the wiring (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33); generating second circuit information obtained by changing value of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero (“The simulated PCB has a width of 38.9 mm, a length of 40 mm, a substrate thickness of 0.8 mm” pg. 289 col 1 line 32-33, and where “The PCB has a conducting ground plane and a single dielectric substrate with a copper layer etched for the required shape. In FDTD method these electrical conductors are assumed to be perfect and have zero thickness.” Pg 288 col 2 line 17-20, where it can be assumed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the smaller measurement in comparing width to thickness, in this case thickness, was turned to zero); and executing an electromagnetic field analysis based on the second circuit information (“A 100x100x16 grid was used as the E-field plots in the z-direction are shown in Figures 7- 16. These show the electric field plots intensity in the z. direction and are measured just above and below the copper tracks.” Pg 289 col 1 line 36-40).
Vahabzadeh teaches generating second circuit information obtained by changing value of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero “As indicated in Fig. 1, a metasurface is typically much thinner than the operation wavelength, i.e., δ
≪
λ. Therefore, it can be modeled as a zero-thickness sheet, which may simultaneously represent an electric and magnetic discontinuity.”
However, although both Buchanan and Vahabzadeh clearly demonstrate the reduction of one dimensions value to zero, neither Buchanan or Vahabzadeh fail to disclose applying a technical rule that includes calculating a ratio between the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness from the first data structure and setting the dimension of one selected from the dimension of the width and the dimension of the thickness to zero when the ratio exceeds a predetermined threshold. Furthermore, there are no motivations absent the applicant’s own disclose, to modify Buchanan or Vahabzadeh in the manner required by the pending applicant’s claims.
Similarly, no art rejection is applied to the dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857