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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 15, 2023 and October 24, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show multiple components and steps as described in the specification. Figure 2 should show the appropriate components or steps rather than mere labels. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing, see MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A method for designing radio scattering bodies, the method comprising
making a determination, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, of a value of an objective function by computation using an analysis model including a design target, the analysis model being created on the basis of a set value of a parameter describing a shape of the design target, the objective function representing a radio scattering property of the design target for a case where a radio wave is incident on the design target under a given condition.
The limitation making a determination […] of a value of an objective function is an abstract ideas because it is directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental evaluation of making a determination. A user may use pen and paper to perform any necessary calculations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A method for designing radio scattering bodies (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Arithmetic logic unit” is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional element “arithmetic logic unit” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, further comprising making a judgment, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement of determining if a value satisfies a condition.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The method according to claim 1 wherein the parameter includes a parameter describing a surface shape of the design target; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter includes a parameter describing a three-dimensional shape of a surface of the design target; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein the value of the objective function is determined on the basis of a computed value of a transmission loss for a case where the radio wave is incident on the design target under the given condition; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a value based on a transmission loss.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein the analysis model is created on the basis of a parameter describing a relative permittivity of the design target; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of creating a model using a relative permittivity parameter. A user may use pen and paper to draw the model.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the value is made using a response surface in which a parameter describing a surface shape of the design target is a design variable; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a value using a response surface.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, further comprising: making a judgement, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement on whether a value of an objective function satisfies a design condition.
and displaying a result of the judgement; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, further comprising making a judgement, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement on whether a value of an objective function satisfies a design condition.
wherein when the value of the objective function is judged not to satisfy the design condition, an update of the value of the parameter is made; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining an updated value.
and the determination and the judgement are made on the basis of a value of the parameter after the update; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement on whether a value of an objective function satisfies a design condition after an update.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The method according to claim 9, wherein the update, the determination, and the judgement are repeated until the value of the objective function is judged to satisfy the design condition; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] ii. Performing repetitive calculations.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional element “radio scattering body design apparatus” represents mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 2, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 3 and 4, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 15-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 5-10, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “non-transitory tangible medium,” “program”, and “computer” represent mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-13, 15-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (Son, Dae-Sung, Jong-Min Hyun, Jung-Ryul Lee, and Won-Jun Lee. "Optimization of the design of radar-absorbing composite structures using response surface model with verification using scanning free space measurement." Composite Structures 186 (2018): 106-113.), hereinafter Son.
Regarding Claim 1, Son teaches A method for designing radio scattering bodies (“In this paper, we propose an optimization method for the design of radar-absorbing structures (RAS) made of fiber reinforced plastic structures using a response surface model and a verification method using a scanning free space measurement (S-FSM) system.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
the method comprising making a determination, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, of a value of an objective function by computation using an analysis model including a design target (“To analyze the relationship between the design variables and the objective function, an optimal design, according to the CNT content, was performed using a response surface model.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
the analysis model being created on the basis of a set value of a parameter describing a shape of the design target (“The objective function must be determined in order to define the optimization. If the objective function simply maximizes the absorption rate at the absorbing frequency, the absorption rate at the other frequencies could be lowered [...] Therefore, the objective function was defined so that the frequency bandwidth was maximized based on−10dB. The spacer, thickness of the CNT layer, and CNT content were used as constraint conditions.” Spacer, CNT thickness, and CNT content are parameters describing a shape of the design.) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
the objective function representing a radio scattering property of the design target for a case where a radio wave is incident on the design target under a given condition (“The objective function must be determined in order to define the optimization. If the objective function simply maximizes the absorption rate at the absorbing frequency, the absorption rate at the other frequencies could be lowered [...] Therefore, the objective function was defined so that the frequency bandwidth was maximized based on−10dB. The spacer, thickness of the CNT layer, and CNT content were used as constraint conditions.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches further comprising making a judgment, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target (Figure 3 discloses the optimization problem definition, comprising maximizing the absorption frequency bandwidth where reflection loss is less than -10dB. Determining if a reflection loss is less than -10dB for a given bandwidth is making a judgement on whether a design condition is satisfied.) (e.g., page 2, column 2, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches wherein the parameter includes a parameter describing a surface shape of the design target (“The spacer, thickness of the CNT layer, and CNT content were used as constraint conditions.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches wherein the parameter includes a parameter describing a three-dimensional shape of a surface of the design target (“[A] constraint condition on the size of the unit cell was added to the analysis, limiting the size of the unit cell to 8mm. The constraint condition of the unit cell size depends on the curvature of object or size of the shape.”) (e.g., page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches wherein the value of the objective function is determined on the basis of a computed value of a transmission loss for a case where the radio wave is incident on the design target under the given condition (“To evaluate the electromagnetic performance while considering the electromagnetic properties, the optimal design was performed using eqs.3–5. The equations are reflected in transmission/reflection characteristics of plane wave when a uniform plane wave is incident on the boundary between regions composed of two different materials. Therefore, accurate reflection loss can be calculated because electromagnetic properties are considered.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches wherein the analysis model is created on the basis of a parameter describing a relative permittivity of the design target (“To calculate reflection loss, propagation constant (βCNT and the intrinsic impedance (ηCNT) are needed and calculated using the permittivity (ε)and permeability (μ) of materials.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches wherein the determination of the value is made using a response surface in which a parameter describing a surface shape of the design target is a design variable (“To analyze the relationship between the design variables and the objective function, an optimal design, according to the CNT content, was performed using a response surface model.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches further comprising: making a judgement, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target (Figure 3 discloses the optimization problem definition, comprising maximizing the absorption frequency bandwidth where reflection loss is less than -10dB. Determining if a reflection loss is less than -10dB for a given bandwidth is making a judgement on whether a design condition is satisfied.) (e.g., page 2, column 2, figure 3).
and displaying a result of the judgement (“The reflection loss of the optimal design in the X-band is shown in Fig. 12.”) (e.g., page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11, Son teaches A radio scattering body design apparatus comprising an arithmetic logic unit (“In this paper, we propose an optimization method for the design of radar-absorbing structures (RAS) made of fiber reinforced plastic structures using a response surface model and a verification method using a scanning free space measurement (S-FSM) system.” The S-FSM system is a design apparatus.) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
The remaining limitations of Claim 11 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 2, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 3 and 4, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 15-18, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 5-8, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21, Son teaches A non-transitory tangible medium storing a program for designing radio scattering bodies, (“In this paper, we propose an optimization method for the design of radar-absorbing structures (RAS) made of fiber reinforced plastic structures using a response surface model and a verification method using a scanning free space measurement (S-FSM) system.” The proposed method is interpreted as being performed by a computer program.) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
The remaining limitations of Claim 21 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0092629 A1), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding Claim 9, Son teaches The method according to claim 1. Son further teaches the method further comprising making a judgement, by means of an arithmetic logic unit, on whether the value of the objective function satisfies a predetermined design condition related to the radio scattering property of the design target (Figure 3 discloses the optimization problem definition, comprising maximizing the absorption frequency bandwidth where reflection loss is less than -10dB. Determining if a reflection loss is less than -10dB for a given bandwidth is making a judgement on whether a design condition is satisfied.) (e.g., page 2, column 2, figure 3).
However, Son does not appear to specifically teach wherein when the value of the objective function is judged not to satisfy the design condition, an update of the value of the parameter is made, and the determination and the judgement are made on the basis of a value of the parameter after the update.
On the other hand, Sato, which relates similarly as a method for designing aircraft with consideration for radar cross-section, does teach the method wherein when the value of the objective function is judged not to satisfy the design condition, an update of the value of the parameter is made (“An optimizing condition is a condition for optimizing a result of the shape designing process. In the first example, for instance, the total-pressure recovery rate inside the duct is maximized (aerodynamic characteristics: good) and the radar cross section is minimized (stealth characteristics: good) […] the CPU 14 calculates an objective function […] from the obtained analytical results and determines whether or not the optimizing condition is satisfied by using this objective function. If it is determined in step S6 that the analytical results obtained from the CFD analysis and the RCS analysis do not satisfy at least one of the design conditions (No in step S6), the CPU 14 updates the design parameters P1 to P11 stored in the design-parameter storage region 134 (step S7).”) (e.g., paragraphs [0052], [0070], and [0071]).
and the determination and the judgement are made on the basis of a value of the parameter after the update (“If it is determined in step S6 that the analytical results obtained from the CFD analysis and the RCS analysis do not satisfy at least one of the design conditions (No in step S6), the CPU 14 updates the design parameters P1 to P11 stored in the design-parameter storage region 134 (step S7) and proceeds to step S3 described above.” That is, the method returns to S3 to create an updated model for radar cross section analysis.) (e.g., paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Son with Sato. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Son teaches a method for optimizing a structure for radar scattering. However, Son does not appear to specifically teach wherein the optimization is performed by iteratively modeling the structure and solving an objective function. On the other hand, Sato, which relates similarly as a method for evaluating radar cross section, does teach a method for iterative optimization. As both Son and Sato relate to methods for modeling structures to reduce reflected radar (e.g., Son, page 1, abstract; Sato, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. Furthermore, Son generally discloses an optimization problem (e.g., Son, figure 3); Sato merely provides a specific implementation of performing said optimization by using an iterative method (e.g., Sato, figure 2). Thus, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Son with Sato to implement and solve the optimization method and problem disclosed in Son.
Regarding Claim 10, Son in view of Sato teaches The method according to claim 9. Sato further teaches wherein the update, the determination, and the judgement are repeated until the value of the objective function is judged to satisfy the design condition (Figure 2 discloses an iterative process wherein optimization is carried out until design conditions are satisfied) (e.g., figure 2).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 9 and 10, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maruyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0061966 A1) teaches a method for parametric design of a reflect array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights