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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05. Although the prior art discloses several unclaimed, some claimed limitation. The closest Prior Art of record are considered to be defined by:
Sarabandi (US 6933812 B2) described an electro-ferromagnetic meta-material comprising: a dielectric material; a plurality of embedded resonant circuits arranged in a periodic structure within the dielectric material, each of the plurality of embedded resonant circuits including a metal loop having an arbitrary shape and size with at least one capacitive gap, wherein the loop includes at least two capacitive gaps each of the two capacitive gaps located on an opposite leg of the metal loop and wherein at least one of the two capacitive gaps includes an electronic tunable capacitor; and a DC electric field applied to the dielectric material for tuning the electronic tunable capacitor to vary the band-gap of the meta-material.
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 6, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a system for processing anisotropic magnetized plasma medium, comprising: a Maxwell equation and polarization current density equation determination module, configured to obtain a Maxwell equation and a polarization current density equation based on electromagnetic characteristics of anisotropic magnetized plasma; a Maxwell equation and polarization current density equation processing module, configured to process the Maxwell equation and the polarization current density equation to obtain the electric field intensity, the magnetic field intensity, and the polarization current density after processed appears an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of a matrix exponential time-domain finite difference processing module, configured to obtain numerical iterative equations for electric field intensity, magnetic field intensity, and polarization current density in anisotropic magnetized plasma medium using the matrix exponential time-domain finite difference method based on the electric field intensity, the magnetic field intensity, and the polarization current density after processed are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional element of an electromagnetic characteristic determination module, configured to determine electromagnetic characteristics of the electromagnetic model using a numerical modeling simulation electromagnetic model based on the numerical iterative equations of the electric field intensity, the magnetic field intensity, and the polarization current density in the anisotropic magnetized plasma medium appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 6 not eligible.
Claims analysis for claim 7-10 as the dependent claims appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claims 7-10 not eligible as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 1 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. None of the prior art of record shows or fairly suggests the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 1 is the inclusion of method for processing anisotropic magnetized plasma medium, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination and claimed elements arranged as in the claim, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered, the argument as follow:
A. Applicant argues in the arguments that amended claim 1 overcome 101, the arguments are persuasive in regards to claim 1.
Claim 6-10 rejected as 101 as previous action indicated and the applicant did not present any argument, any amendment or any evidence that can overcome 101, therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights