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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 11/20/2025.
By the amendment, claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 27, and 33 have been amended. Claim 16 has been canceled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-35 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (Remarks pages 10-11), regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1 and 18, that the claims, as amended, address a technical problem in the field of material design, namely predicting structural colors of nanoparticle arrays due to complex light scattering and interference effects, and therefore should be considered patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims, as amended, recite the step of conducting a simulation to generate an output parameter represents the use of mathematical relationships and calculations to model optical behavior of nanoparticle structures. However, mathematical modeling and simulation constitute mathematical concepts, which are a recognized category of abstract idea. Although Applicant asserts that the claims use advanced simulation techniques (e.g., Monte Carlo, bulk scattering simulations, etc.) and addresses a technical problem in nanomaterial color engineering, however, the claims itself do not recite any specific simulation algorithm, rule set, or technological improvement to computer functionality. Instead, the claims broadly recite conducting a simulation based on selected inputs and physical parameters and displaying an output parameter. Unlike the claims in McRO, which recited specific rules that improve computer animation technology, the present claims merely use a genic processor to receive inputs, perform simulation, and display outputs. The recited physical parameters e.g., wavelength range, refractive index, microparticle diameters are input data to the mathematical model and do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument regarding lack of preemption is also not persuasive because preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility. Even if the claims do not preempt all uses of the underlying mathematical concepts, it is still directed to an abstract idea without additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15, 17-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
Claims 1, 18-19, and 35 recite a computer-implemented method and a computer system and are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.04(a):
Claim 1 includes steps of: displaying and receiving selections of modeling objects and model types; requesting and receiving simulation inputs and physical parameters, conducting a simulation based on these inputs; and displaying output parameters. The physical parameters include wavelength range, refractive index, microsphere volume fraction, nanoparticle diameters, second nanoparticle fractions, microparticle diameter. These limitations are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes (observing, evaluating, receiving inputs, and displaying information); mathematical concepts (conducting a simulation). The substance of the method is mathematically modeling nanoparticle arrays to compute optical properties. This is a mathematical relationship/model. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, specifically a mathematical concept (simulation/modeling of optical properties) and mental process type steps (receiving, displaying).
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
Claim 1 recites the processor is generic, performing standard display, receive, simulate operations. There is no improvement to processor architecture, memory handling, or simulation engine. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that generic computing components do not impose meaningfully limits.
Claim 1 further recites physical parameters of nanoparticles, but the result is only a displayed output parameter. Steps such as displaying, receiving, and requesting are insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
The additional elements (i.e. the processor and computer system) to perform input gathering, mathematical optimization and output display, when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Using a command input interface is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the GUI art.
Independent claim 18 is directed to similar concepts as claim 1 and do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rationale.
Independent Claims 19 and 15 recite steps of displaying requests for inputs (optical property objective, decision variable, optimization parameter), receiving those inputs, and displaying an optimized reflectance curve, transmittance curve, absorption curve, or optimized material property based on the inputs. These steps describe collecting information, performing mathematical optimization, and presenting the results, which constitute mathematical concepts and mental processes, identified as abstract ideas. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely recite a generic processor performing routine functions of display and receiving information. The claims do not improve computer functionality or an optical manufacturing technology, nor does it apply the optimization to control a physical device or transform a material. Instead, the processor merely performs the abstract idea using generic computer components. Further, the additional elements do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Using a generic processor to collect input parameters, perform optimization, and display results represents well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity. Therefore, claims 19 and 35 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-17 and 20-34 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication 2022/0262323 A1 (DELIWALA et al.) - Disclose continuous waveform driving in multi-color electrophoretic displays.
US Publication 2022/0075515 A1 (Floren et al.) – Disclose interactive graphical user interfaces for simulated systems.
US Publication 2012/0278A1 (DELIWALA et al.) - Disclose continuous waveform driving in multi-color electrophoretic displays.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174