DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to pending claims 1-5 filed 6/15/2026.
Claim Objections
In claim 1 ¶2, “a data preparation stage:” comprising the following steps is missing a verb. Hence, amendment to “a data preparation stage comprising:” is suggested.
The paragraph starting with “a problem solving stage” is likewise objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 recite inputting conductor arrangements into a “FasterCap” tool in order to generate XGBoost labels”. But the Specifications do not provide sufficient written description for these elements “FasterCap” and “XGBoost” labels, and hence, a one of ordinary skill in the art, being unable to understand the structure of these tools, can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recite inputting conductor arrangements into a FasterCap tool in order to generate XGBoost labels”. But the Specifications do not provide sufficient written description for this process. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to obtain data from a FasterCap tool in order to generate XGBoost labels, nor to perform training on the XGBoost model via the input and the label dataset based on the Specifications, for example, as presented in 0029-30.
The remaining claims are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the parent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1 ¶3, a reader would not know how to interpret “enough” in view of each technological standard in view of taking Fast Cap measurements. Hence, the claim is indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly defining the claimed range.
In Claim 1 ¶6, a reader would not know how to interpret “meanwhile” in view of each step of generating samples, inputting, and taking FasterCap outputs. Hence, the claim is indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly defining the claimed concurrence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. In the remarks, Applicant argued:
1. (a) Regarding the 112 rejections: FasterCap is a well-known open-source capacitance field solver provided by FastFieldSolvers, and the Office also cited FastFieldSolvers as a priori document int the rejection, which proves that FasteCap was a readily available tool known in the relevant technical field before the effective filing date of the present application. Hence, FasteCap is well-known and a POSITA is able to use it without further disclosure.
Secondly, XGBoost is also an open-source and widely used gradient boosting decision tree machine learning suite (see "XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System", Chen & Guestrin, 2016). The training process, parameter tuning methods, loss functions, and regression/classification applications of XGBoost are well-known technologies. That is, the usage of XGBoost is well-known technology, and a person of ordinary skill in the art is able to use it without further disclosure.
(b) Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to recited "a size of an adaptive window of the adaptive window extraction and gridding method is determined by reducing a coupling capacitance between an environmental conductor and a main conductor to 1% of a self-capacitance of the main conductor in a simulation experiment" based on dependent Claim 2 and paragraphs [0020], [0030] of the as-filed specification.
That is, the as-filed Specifications provides sufficient description to enable the "adaptive window extraction and gridding method" by determining a size of an adaptive window based on a coupling capacitance between an environmental conductor and a main conductor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2316.I.A, ¶1-3, “The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art (¶1).” Further, “written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process (¶3).” Examiner submits that XGBoost and FasterCap are features missing descriptions in the Specification and would not be conventional or known to one in the art. One of ordinary skill would not have been able to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. That a reader could potentially seek out these names, such as via an internet search, in order to seek a possible description among many potentially available does not remedy this deficiency. Hence, a reader reading the Specifications does not contain a clear discerption of how to make or use the invention.
3. Regarding claim 1 ¶3, a "large number" is relative terminology, Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 by replacing "a large number of data sets" with "a plurality of data sets".
Examiner agrees and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
2. Regarding the prior art rejections, the art of record does not disclose the newly added amendments.
Examiner agrees and the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujimura (US 20230027655 A1) discloses a technique of calculating parasitic capacitance via a field solver, see figs. 9-10.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG LI whose telephone number is (303)297-4263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-12p, 3-11p MT (11-2p, 5-1a ET).
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. The examiner is available for interviews Mon-Fri 6-11a, 2-7p MT (8-1p, 4-9p ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571)272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LIANG LI/
Primary examiner AU 2143
Prosecution Insights