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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2, 5 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 2, it recites the limitation “wherein the parameter includes at least one of: frequencies of signals emitted by the structures, power consumption of the structure, a distance between the first structure and the second structure, a material of the structure, and a self-resonant frequency of the structure”. It is unclear what the limitation “the structure” refers. Claim 1 recites “structures” and “a first structure and a second structure”.
As per Claim 5, it is a substantial duplicate of claim 4.
As per Claim 8-11, they recite the limitation “perform control” which would be better as “perform controlling”, “perform control of”, or “control” to fix a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 1) The claim 1-11 is directed to an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of machines; and, the claim 12 is directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. The claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1 and 12-13 recite:
sequentially select an analysis target (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
determine one or more analysis regions in the analysis target, the one or more analysis regions being determined on the basis of a parameter relative to mutual influence between structures included in the analysis target (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
perform electromagnetic field analysis on the one or more analysis regions (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion), wherein the structures include a first structure and a second structure, and at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “information processing apparatus comprising a hardware processor connected to a memory and configured to”, “display device” and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded, the instructions causing a computer to execute processing, the computer being included in an information processing apparatus …, the processing executed by the computer comprising:” which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “computer”, “memory” and “processor” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further the addition element of “electromagnetic field analysis over a plurality of stages” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP §2106.05(h)).
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “sequentially select an analysis target (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).”
Also the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)): “wherein the structures include a first structure and a second structure, and at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).”
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do 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 elements of “information processing apparatus comprising a hardware processor connected to a memory and configured to”, “display device” and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded, the instructions causing a computer to execute processing, the computer being included in an information processing apparatus …, the processing executed by the computer comprising:” which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further the additional elements of “electromagnetic field analysis over a plurality of stages” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP §2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claims 1 and 12-13 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “sequentially select an analysis target (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).”
Also the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP §2106.05(h)): “wherein the structures include a first structure and a second structure, and at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).”
Further dependent claims 2-11 recite:
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the parameter includes at least one of: frequencies of signals emitted by the structures, power consumption of the structure, a distance between the first structure and the second structure, a material of the structure, and a self-resonant frequency of the structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the parameter further includes a ground condition indicating a size and a shape of a ground of one of the structures serving as a signal source (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions, boundary conditions indicating states of respective boundary portions of the analysis regions, and mesh conditions including respective mesh fineness of the analysis regions (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process).
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions, boundary conditions indicating states of respective boundary portions of the analysis regions, and mesh conditions including respective mesh fineness of the analysis regions (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process).
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions, boundary conditions indicating states of respective boundary portions of the analysis regions, and mesh conditions including respective mesh fineness of the analysis regions (a mathematical concept and/or a mental process).
7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to output an analysis result of the electromagnetic field analysis (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control a display device to display information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the boundary conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the mesh conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
11. The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the mesh conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiso (US 2009/0055121 A1) in view of Kiso ’047 (JP 2006012047 A), further in view of Matsumoto (US 2005/0289497 A1).
As per Claim 1 and 12-13, Kiso teaches a method/information processing apparatus/non-transitory computer-readable recording medium performing electromagnetic field analysis over a plurality of stages, the information processing apparatus comprising (Fig. 2, [0088]-[0090], [0108] “In the electromagnetic field analysis according to the first embodiment, in the above-described entire analysis domain, a two-step analysis is performed as follows.”; [0109] “In a more precise electromagnetic field analysis as described later in a second embodiment, in the above-described entire analysis domain, a three-step analysis is executed as follows.”: the electromagnetic field analysis is executed as a two-step or three-step analysis, i.e., over a plurality of stages), comprising:
a hardware processor connected to a memory and configured to: ([0085] “a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 120 and a memory 122 including a ROM (Read Only Memory) and a RAM (Random Access Memory), which are connected to a bus 105”; [0088] “CPU 120 functioning as an arithmetic processing device performs processing corresponding to program 131, which performs the electromagnetic field analysis, with memory 122 serving as a working memory.”);
determine one or more analysis regions in the analysis target ([0108] “The analysis using a detailed mesh (IAS analysis) is performed only in partial domains (IAS) surrounding n (n is a natural number) wave sources So and fine structural bodies Sd”: one or more partial domains (IAS) are determined within the entire analysis domain, i.e., the “analysis regions” as claimed);
perform electromagnetic field analysis on the one or more analysis regions ([0109] “The analysis using the detailed mesh (IAS analysis) is performed only in the partial domains (IAS)”; [0226] “Next, an absorption boundary 5 such as a PML (Perfectly Matched Layer) is set outside of EAS.”: the electromagnetic field analysis is carried out on the determined partial domains); and
the structures include a first structure and a second structure ([0107] “wave source So can be considered to an LSI (Large Scale Integration), fine structural body Sd to be a circuit board, rough structural body Ss to be a shield case or housing, which well coincides with an actual precision instrument product.”: the analysis target contains plural distinct structures — an LSI, a circuit board, and a shield case or housing).
However, Kiso fails to teach explicitly sequentially select an analysis target;
the one or more analysis regions being determined on the basis of a parameter relative to mutual influence between structures included in the analysis target; and
at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure.
Kiso ’047 teaches the one or more analysis regions being determined on the basis of a parameter relative to mutual influence between structures included in the analysis target (pg 10 & 13-15, description of Fig. 2-3,
PNG
media_image1.png
207
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
161
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: the analysis area blocks are determined from the distance between the important signal line and each block and from the wavelength fixed by the signal frequency — parameters governing how strongly the signal line electromagnetically influences neighboring structures). In particular, Kiso ’047 teaches dividing the entire analysis target area of a circuit board into a plurality of analysis area blocks of different sizes based on simplification parameters, the division becoming coarser as the distance from the important signal line increases, so that analysis detail is concentrated where the signal line’s influence is strongest.
Kiso and Kiso ’047 are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, electromagnetic field analysis of circuit boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Kiso ’047 into Kiso’s invention for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program performing a staged detailed-mesh analysis of partial domains surrounding wave sources to provide characteristic analysis performed with sufficient accuracy and in a shorter processing time than in the prior art, by dividing the analysis target into analysis area blocks whose division becomes coarser as the distance from the important signal line increases (Kiso ’047: Abstract, pg 5).
However, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 fails to teach explicitly sequentially select an analysis target; and at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure.
On the other hand, Matsumoto teaches sequentially select an analysis target ([0072] “When it is assumed that a given module is a target module, the amount of radiation that the module receives from another module coupled thereto is calculated.”; [0089] “the simplified analysis model may be used for all of the modules to determine the heat quantity of each node, and then, the target module may be subjected to recalculation using the most detailed heat distribution analysis model”: a target module is selected in sequence after the all-module pass and subjected to detailed recalculation); and at least one of the one or more analysis regions includes an entirety of the first structure and part of the second structure ([0031] “The modules may be, for example, regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it.”: a module region contains the on-board component in its entirety together with part of the surrounding area of the wiring board). In particular, Matsumoto teaches a layout designing/characteristic analyzing apparatus for a wiring board in which the board is treated as module regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it, an element of one module is electromagnetically influenced by the other modules ([0072]), elemental currents on module boundaries are complemented from adjacent modules ([0069]), and a selected target module is recalculated with the most detailed analysis model.
Kiso, Kiso ’047, and Matsumoto are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, electromagnetic field analysis of circuit boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Matsumoto into Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047’s invention for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program performing a staged, block-divided analysis of a circuit board to provide radiation characteristics analyzed module by module over regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it, with the electromagnetic influence of the other modules accounted for and the target module recalculated using the most detailed model for products with excellent quality and high reliability (Matsumoto: Abstract, [0031], [0072], [0089]).
As per Claim 2, Kiso fails to teach explicitly wherein the parameter includes at least one of: frequencies of signals emitted by the structures, power consumption of the structure, a distance between the first structure and the second structure, a material of the structure, and a self-resonant frequency of the structure.
Kiso ’047 teaches wherein the parameter includes at least one of: frequencies of signals emitted by the structures, power consumption of the structure, a distance between the first structure and the second structure, a material of the structure, and a self-resonant frequency of the structure (Kiso teaches the one or more analysis regions being determined on the basis of a parameter relative to mutual influence between structures included in the analysis target (pg 10 & 13-15, description of Fig. 2-3,
PNG
media_image1.png
207
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
161
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the recited “at least one of” list is met by the distance between structures, the frequency of the emitted signal, and the material (dielectric constant or permeability) of the medium).
As per Claim 4 and 5, Kiso teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine boundary and mesh conditions of the analysis regions, including boundary conditions indicating states of respective boundary portions of the analysis regions ([0226] “Next, an absorption boundary 5 such as a PML (Perfectly Matched Layer) is set outside of EAS.”: an absorbing boundary condition is set at the boundary portion of the analysis region), and mesh conditions including respective mesh fineness of the analysis regions ([0101] “of the time step in the FDTD method needs to satisfy the Courant stability condition”; [0227] “a coefficient Ra is first determined in accordance with the fineness of fine structural body Sd included in the conversion surface”; [0299] “CPU 120 reads analysis condition 130 from hard disk 124, and sets coefficient Ra indicating a cell size ratio between the IAS cell and the EAS cell”: the mesh-fineness coefficient of each analysis region is determined by the processor in accordance with the fineness of the structure it contains, subject to the Courant stability condition).
However, Kiso fails to teach explicitly determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions.
Kiso ’047 teaches determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions (pg 10 & 13-15, description of Fig. 2-3,
PNG
media_image1.png
207
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
161
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: the size of each analysis area block is determined from the distance and signal-frequency-wavelength parameters, the division becoming coarser with distance from the important signal line).
As per Claim 7, Kiso fails to teach explicitly wherein the hardware processor is further configured to output an analysis result of the electromagnetic field analysis.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to output an analysis result of the electromagnetic field analysis ([0078] “the results of the radiation characteristic analysis are displayed or printed”: the analysis results are converted into outputtable form and displayed or printed).
5. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiso (US 2009/0055121 A1) in view of Kiso ’047 (JP 2006012047 A) and Matsumoto (US 2005/0289497 A1), further in view of Iwaki (US 2005/0197817 A1).
Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 above.
As per Claim 3, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto fails to teach explicitly wherein the parameter further includes a ground condition indicating a size and a shape of a ground of one of the structures serving as a signal source.
Iwaki teaches wherein the parameter further includes a ground condition indicating a size and a shape of a ground of one of the structures serving as a signal source ([0184] “the wiring 201 gives the interference and the wiring 204 receives the interference.”; [0208] “In the GND search (S531), the GND wirings present around the wirings whose interference characteristics are to be calculated, i.e., the patterns of the earth or the ground region, are extracted.”; [0216] “a portion where a ground pattern is present either above or below the wiring and a portion where no ground pattern is present can be separated in different segments. Also, portions having ground patterns different from the above and the below of the wiring can be separated into different segments.”; [0209]: the ground patterns around the interference-giving wiring (the signal source) specify the geometry of that ground, i. e. its extent and its shape are extracted and the analysis is partitioned into segments in accordance with the presence and configuration of the ground patterns.). In particular, Iwaki teaches an interference analysis apparatus for a circuit board in which the GND wirings present around the wirings to be analyzed are extracted, and the wiring is separated into different analysis segments depending on whether and which ground pattern is present above or below the wiring.
Kiso, Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Iwaki are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, electromagnetic field and interference analysis of circuit boards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Iwaki into Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto’s invention for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program that determines block-divided partial analysis domains around interfering structures to provide characteristic analysis performed with sufficient accuracy and in a shorter processing time than in the prior art, by dividing the analysis target into analysis area blocks whose division becomes coarser as the distance from the important signal line increases (Kiso ’047: Abstract, pg 5) and to provide radiation characteristics analyzed module by module over regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it, with the electromagnetic influence of the other modules accounted for and the target module recalculated using the most detailed model for products with excellent quality and high reliability (Matsumoto: Abstract, [0031], [0072], [0089]). Further the motivation to combine the teachings of Iwaki is to provide extraction of the ground patterns present around the wirings whose interference characteristics are to be calculated more appropriately and accurately and separation of the analysis into segments in accordance with the ground patterns present above or below the wiring (Iwaki: [0023], [0208], [0216]).
As per Claim 6, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured determine, on the basis of the parameter, respective sizes of the analysis regions (Kiso ’047: pg 10 & 13-15, description of Fig. 2-3,
PNG
media_image2.png
161
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: the size of each analysis area block is determined from the distance and signal-frequency-wavelength parameters, the division becoming coarser with distance from the important signal line) boundary and mesh conditions of the analysis regions, including boundary conditions indicating states of respective boundary portions of the analysis regions (Kiso: [0226] “Next, an absorption boundary 5 such as a PML (Perfectly Matched Layer) is set outside of EAS.”: an absorbing boundary condition is set at the boundary portion of the analysis region), and mesh conditions including respective mesh fineness of the analysis regions (Kiso: [0227] “a coefficient Ra is first determined in accordance with the fineness of fine structural body Sd included in the conversion surface”; [0299] “CPU 120 reads analysis condition 130 from hard disk 124, and sets coefficient Ra indicating a cell size ratio between the IAS cell and the EAS cell”; [0101] “of the time step in the FDTD method needs to satisfy the Courant stability condition”: the mesh-fineness coefficient of each analysis region is determined by the processor in accordance with the fineness of the structure it contains, subject to the Courant stability condition).
6. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiso (US 2009/0055121 A1) in view of Kiso ’047 (JP 2006012047 A) and Matsumoto (US 2005/0289497 A1), further in view of Nagase (US 2006/0095246 A1).
Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 above.
As per Claim 8, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto fails to teach explicitly wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control a display device to display information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions.
Nagase teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control a display device to display information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions ([0050] “in addition to objects such as a sphere, a circular cone and the likes, grids of three levels are displayed.”; [0053] “displays a list of objects configuring a model, and lets the user select objects, thereby determines coordinates of the sub grid domain to be defined as a child hierarchy”; [0055] “the object selecting unit 102 displays the object inclusion domain defined as the child hierarchy as a sub grid domain via the model displaying unit 105”; [0064] “The model displaying unit 105 is a processing unit that displays information concerning multi grid creation on a display device, and displays the multi grid model shown in FIG. 4 and the emerge operation screen shown in FIG. 3 and the likes.”; [0114]: the analysis region (sub grid domain) is rendered on the display device with the coordinates that define its extent, i.e., information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions). In particular, Nagase teaches an apparatus for analyzing an electromagnetic wave in which an object inclusion domain including an object selected by the user, with a designated margin, is made a sub grid domain, and the information concerning multi grid creation, i. e. the grid domains, their grids, and their defining information is displayed on a display device for verification by the user.
Kiso, Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Nagase are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, electromagnetic field analysis of circuit boards and electronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Nagase into Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto’s invention for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program that determines partial analysis domains and per-domain meshes structures to provide characteristic analysis performed with sufficient accuracy and in a shorter processing time than in the prior art, by dividing the analysis target into analysis area blocks whose division becomes coarser as the distance from the important signal line increases (Kiso ’047: Abstract, pg 5) and to provide radiation characteristics analyzed module by module over regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it, with the electromagnetic influence of the other modules accounted for and the target module recalculated using the most detailed model for products with excellent quality and high reliability (Matsumoto: Abstract, [0031], [0072], [0089]). Further the motivation to combine the teachings of Nagase is to provide easy creation of a multi grid model, with the object inclusion domain defined as a sub grid domain and the information concerning multi grid creation displayed on a display device so to improve the efficiency of an electromagnetic wave analysis (Nagase: [0123], [0114], [0064]).
As per Claim 10, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto fails to teach explicitly wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the mesh conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions.
Nagase teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the mesh conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions ([0050] “The grid in the grid domain that appears thinnest is most rough, meanwhile, the grid of the sub grid domain whose grid domain appears thicker is finer.”; [0077] ““CELL SIZE” indicates respective mesh intervals in the order of the x axis, the y axis, and the Z axis.”: the mesh fineness of each displayed grid domain is shown together with the domain itself, and the cell-size information states the mesh intervals).
7. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiso (US 2009/0055121 A1) in view of Kiso ’047 (JP 2006012047 A), Matsumoto (US 2005/0289497 A1), and Nagase (US 2006/0095246 A1), further in view of Iwase (US 2005/0078870 A1).
Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047 and Matsumoto teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 above.
Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Nagase teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 8 and 10 above.
As per Claim 9, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Nagase fails to teach explicitly wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the boundary conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions.
Iwase teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the boundary conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions ([0058] “creates object data which is shape information about an analysis target object and displays the object data on the display 120”; [0061] “blue is added to a first surface 200a and red is added to a second surface 200b”; [0073] “kinds of boundary condition are associated according to each the color data”; [0074] “The analysis condition decision part 155 sets a size of a load obtained by the information acquisition part 153 to the first surface 200a, and determines a boundary condition by setting the fact that the second surface 200b is the fixed surface”: the analysis target object is displayed with colors added to its surfaces, each color indicating the kind of boundary condition of that surface, i. e. boundary condition information shown together with the displayed regions and their extents). In particular, Iwase teaches an analysis apparatus in which the object data of an analysis target is displayed on a display, surfaces of the displayed object are colored, and the kinds of boundary condition are associated with the color data so that the analysis condition decision part determines the boundary condition of each colored surface for the simulation.
Kiso, Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, Nagase, and Iwase are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, computer-implemented numerical analysis of physical products, and are directed to creating analysis models and setting and displaying analysis conditions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Iwase into the invention of Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Nagase for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program that determines partial analysis domains and per-domain meshes structures to provide characteristic analysis performed with sufficient accuracy and in a shorter processing time than in the prior art, by dividing the analysis target into analysis area blocks whose division becomes coarser as the distance from the important signal line increases (Kiso ’047: Abstract, pg 5) and to provide radiation characteristics analyzed module by module over regions each including an on-board component and an area surrounding it, with the electromagnetic influence of the other modules accounted for and the target module recalculated using the most detailed model for products with excellent quality and high reliability (Matsumoto: Abstract, [0031], [0072], [0089]). Further the motivation to combine the teachings of Nagase is to provide easy creation of a multi grid model, with the object inclusion domain defined as a sub grid domain and the information concerning multi grid creation displayed on a display device so to improve the efficiency of an electromagnetic wave analysis (Nagase: [0123], [0114], [0064]) the motivation to combine the teachings of Iwase for the purpose of an electromagnetic field analysis program whose analysis regions, grids and their defining information are displayed for user verification to provide display of the analysis target with kinds of boundary condition associated with color data added to its displayed surfaces, so that the boundary condition of each displayed region is communicated to the user together with the displayed model to perform the product development for the purpose of cost cutting, quality improvement and reduction in development schedule (Iwase: [0005], [0073], [0074]).
As per Claim 11, Kiso as modified by Kiso ’047, Matsumoto, and Nagase teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control the display device to display information indicating the mesh conditions together with the information indicating the respective sizes of the analysis regions (Nagase: [0050] “The grid in the grid domain that appears thinnest is most rough, meanwhile, the grid of the sub grid domain whose grid domain appears thicker is finer.”; [0077] ““CELL SIZE indicates respective mesh intervals in the order of the x axis, the y axis, and the Z axis.”: the mesh fineness of each displayed grid domain is shown together with the domain itself, and the cell-size information states the mesh intervals).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Teramae (US 2011/0082681 A1) teaches a coupled analysis apparatus that sequentially reads the modules of a device model and performs electromagnetic field analysis coupled with circuit analysis on each module.
Hirano (US 2002/0065643 A1) teaches analyzing a quantity of electromagnetic interference of an LSI by execution of simulation driven by clock-synchronous peak currents and load charging/discharging currents, and selecting the instances with a large quantity of noise for countermeasure.
Sekino (US 2006/0036421 A1) teaches an electromagnetic field simulator that sets simulation domains so that discontinuous parts of conductor wiring, as well as the wiring parts in a predetermined range peripheral to the discontinuous parts, are included in the same simulation domain, the domains being analyzed and their characteristics connected.
Kazama (US 7,643,980 B2) teaches an electromagnetic field analysis apparatus that defines a partial analysis area around a designated noise source on a printed circuit board and analyzes the electromagnetic field of the partial area.
Nishino (US 6,285,973 B1) teaches an apparatus for calculating electromagnetic field strength radiated from a circuit device in which the dimensions of the board and its ground and signal layers are entered as model parameters and the mesh length is calculated according to the analytic frequency.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights