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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 2 shows pencil icons overlayed over numerical values.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 1-15 throughout recites limitations in the form of equations with variables. There is insufficient antecedent basis for (other than J, M, E, B) the variables and operations in the claim. Each element (whether physical or abstract) should be defined (and supported by the original specification) before being used (see Note below). One of ordinary skill in the art would assume interpretations for variables such as J, M, E, B, (electromagnetic currents and fields) as well as μ0 and Ɛ0 (permeability of free space and permittivity of free space, respectively), but these variables (as well as any other variable or element) should be named and defined before being referred to at least because under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim these variables could mean other things. For example, it is unclear based on the claims how the differential operator
∇
'
is different from ∇, it is also unclear what ‘K’ and ‘G’ refer to.
Claims 5, & 9 in line 1-2 and line 5 (respectively) recites the limitation "wherein …" and "if the medium is fully shielded, defining the boundary conditions at top and bottom PEC …" (respectively). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). There would be sufficient antecedent basis for element “the uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media” as parent claim 1 recites “uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media”. For the purposes of examination “the medium” is interpreted as “the uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media”.
Claim 16-20 in lines 2-3, line 3, line, lines 2-3 recites the limitation element "…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for element “the uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media” as parent claim 1 recites “uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media”. For the purposes of examination “the multilayered medium” is interpreted as “the uniaxially anisotropic multilayered media”.
Claim 17 in line 2 recites the limitation "wherein ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-20 are rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of parent claim 1 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Regarding “Enablement”:
Claims 1-15 throughout recites limitations in the form of equations with variables. There is insufficient antecedent basis for (other than J, M, E, B) the variables and operations in the specification. Each element (whether physical or abstract) should be defined and explained in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would assume interpretations for variables such as J, M, E, B, as well as μ0 and Ɛ0, but these variables (as well as any other variable or element) should be named and defined before being used or referred to.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-20 are rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of parent claim 1 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Note: MPEP 2106(I): “Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it.”
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image4.png
718
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional element of “multilayered media”.
Explanation:
Issue:
This element amounts to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the element of “multilayered media” does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element of “multilayered media” is no more than
“generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” As per the step 2A prong 2 analysis above.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 2 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
771
713
media_image5.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image6.png
248
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 3 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image7.png
804
732
media_image7.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image8.png
658
679
media_image8.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image9.png
704
703
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of “medium”, & “perfect electric conductor (PEC) ground plates”.
Explanation:
Issue:
These elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
The “medium”, & “perfect electric conductor (PEC) ground plates” is not the inventive concept, but rather are elements descriptive of the environment in which the inventive concept (and judicial exception) is applied.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the elements of “medium”, & “perfect electric conductor (PEC) ground plates” do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element of “medium”, & “perfect electric conductor (PEC) ground plates” are no more than
“generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” As per the step 2A prong 2 analysis above.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 4 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image10.png
783
697
media_image10.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image11.png
643
677
media_image11.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image12.png
41
412
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 5 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image13.png
401
719
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 6 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image14.png
339
717
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 7 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image15.png
761
724
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 8 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image16.png
415
677
media_image16.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image17.png
716
681
media_image17.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image18.png
778
681
media_image18.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image19.png
299
690
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 9 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image20.png
300
732
media_image20.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image21.png
713
708
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 10 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
PNG
media_image22.png
81
718
media_image22.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image23.png
360
689
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 8 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image24.png
261
737
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 12 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
PNG
media_image25.png
98
680
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 12 and thereby from claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 13 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image26.png
69
733
media_image26.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image27.png
551
694
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 13 and thereby from claim 12 and thereby from claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 14 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
or towards “Law of Nature” or “Natural Phenomenon” (in the form of voltages V or fields E or H or currents J or M or I and relations to the physical constants μ0 or Ɛ0).
PNG
media_image28.png
258
714
media_image28.png
Greyscale
&
PNG
media_image29.png
332
678
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 14 and thereby from claim 13 and thereby from claim 12 and thereby from claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
The claim 15 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below.
PNG
media_image30.png
205
737
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 16 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein conductive elements comprise interconnects within a circuit assembly and the multilayered medium comprises stratified layers of the circuit assembly, the method including solving for electric current in the circuit assembly.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Explanation:
Issue:
This elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
3) the elements of:
“conductive elements”, “interconnects”, “circuit assembly”, & “stratified layers”
Are no more “than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” at least because they further describe the “multilayered media” and the environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, neither the element of “multilayered media” nor the additional elements listed above integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s), as explained in step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 17:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 17 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the conductive grounding element comprises a structural metal frame embedded within a concrete foundation structure and the multilayered medium comprises layers of earth soil, the including solving for electric current in both the conductive grounding elements and the concrete foundation structure.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Explanation:
Issue:
This elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
3) the elements of:
“conductive grounding element”, “structural metal frame”, “concrete foundation structure”, & “layers of earth soil”
Are no more “than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” at least because they further describe the “multilayered media” and the environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, neither the element of “multilayered media” nor the additional elements listed above integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s), as explained in step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 18:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 18 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein dielectric elements comprise optical interconnects within an integrated photonics assembly the multilayered medium comprises stratified layers of the photonics assembly, the method including solving for electric and magnetic currents in the photonics assembly.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Explanation:
Issue:
This elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
3) the elements of:
“dielectric elements”, “optical interconnects”, “an integrated photonics assembly”, & “stratified layers of the photonics assembly”
Are no more “than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” at least because they further describe the “multilayered media” and the environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, neither the element of “multilayered media” nor the additional elements listed above integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s), as explained in step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 19:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 19 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein dielectric elements comprise underground natural resource formations within the layers of soil and the multilayered medium comprises layers of Earth strata, the method including solving for electric and magnetic currents in the natural resource formation .”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Explanation:
Issue:
This elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
3) the elements of:
“dielectric elements”, “underground natural resource formations”, “layers of soil”, & “layers of Earth strata”
Are no more “than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” at least because they further describe the “multilayered media” and the environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, neither the element of “multilayered media” nor the additional elements listed above integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s), as explained in step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 20:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A -Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
the judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
The claim 20 additionally recites:
limitations directed towards Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein dielectric elements comprise sea ice formations within the ocean ice sheets and the multilayered medium Comprises layers of sea ice, water, and snow, the method including solving for electric and magnetic currents in the natural and man-made irregularities present in the layers.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Explanation:
Issue:
This elements amount to no more than “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
1) The inventive concept is with regard to (as per Abstract) “method to compute the mixed potential contributions to electric and magnetic field in multilayered media”.
2) the multilayered media refers to different “fields of use” to which the judicial exception (and inventive concept) is applied, in claims 16-20.
The multilayered media is not the inventive concept, but rather is what the inventive concept is applied to.
3) the elements of:
“dielectric elements”, “sea ice formations”, “ocean ice sheets”, & “layers of sea ice, water, and snow”,
Are no more “than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” at least because they further describe the “multilayered media” and the environment.
Conclusion:
Therefore, neither the element of “multilayered media” nor the additional elements listed above integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s), as explained in step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL "Electromagnetic Response of Anisotropic
Laminates to Distributed Sources" (Zhong) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
NPL "Harmonically Time Varying, Traveling Electromagnetic Fields ..." ( Marcusson) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see equations 1-7.
NPL "Layer-wise and equivalent single layer models