CTNF 18/539,490 CTNF 96390 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 Regarding claim 1, the claim recites an electromagnetic wave calculation system calculating an electromagnetic wave generated in a semiconductor device, comprising: an electromagnetic wave simulator; and a previous data memory, wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator and the previous data memory have communication with each other via network, the previous data memory records electromagnetic wave data of the semiconductor device corresponding to a type name of the semiconductor and a usage condition of the semiconductor device as previous data, and when the type name and the usage condition of the semiconductor device are inputted, the electromagnetic wave simulator has communication with the previous data memory, and outputs the electromagnetic wave data under the usage condition of the semiconductor device. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of an electromagnetic wave simulator. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, simulating an electromagnetic wave can be done by a human with pen and paper. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a previous data memory, a semiconductor device, the network the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculating an electromagnetic wave in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to calculate an electromagnetic wave generated in a semiconductor device. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator and the previous data memory have communication with each other via network, the previous data memory records electromagnetic wave data of the semiconductor device corresponding to a type name of the semiconductor and a usage condition of the semiconductor device as previous data, and when the type name and the usage condition of the semiconductor device are inputted, the electromagnetic wave simulator has communication with the previous data memory, and outputs the electromagnetic wave data under the usage condition of the semiconductor device. These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculating an electromagnetic wave in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 is 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 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator is built up on a computer connected to the network. ”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is 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 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator is accessed from a homepage of a company of a user of the semiconductor device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is 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 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the semiconductor device includes a transistor, and stored in the previous data memory is profile data of electromagnetic wave strength at a time switching-operating the transistor under the usage condition for each the type name of the semiconductor device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is 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 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the usage condition includes a voltage value applied to the semiconductor device, a current value of current flowing in the semiconductor device, and a carrier frequency as a total number of switching of the transistor. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is 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 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the usage condition includes a length and inductance of a bus wiring connected to the transistor from a smoothing capacitor connected to the semiconductor device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is 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 7 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the usage condition includes a dead time as an interval period between pulses of a pulse signal for turning on and off the transistor. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is 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 8 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the usage condition includes an output frequency of the semiconductor device. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is 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 9 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein a measured object including the semiconductor device is prepared, and the previous data detects the electromagnetic wave generated by switching-operating the transistor constituting the measured object under the usage condition with an antenna to be a voltage signal, and is profile data of a voltage signal after Fourier transformation in which the voltage signal is cut with a predetermined temporal width and is partially Fourier transformed to convert into frequency. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is 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 10 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the measured object includes a dielectric load connected to an output node of the semiconductor device, the profile data includes plural pieces of profile data for each load current obtained by changing the load current flowing in the dielectric load, and the previous data is data of a peak value of a profile calculated by superposing the plural pieces of profile data. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is 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 11 depends on claim 10, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… the previous data is the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourier transformation calculated based on the voltage signal in which a length of a bus wiring connected to the transistor from the capacitor is smaller than a length of one wavelength in an upper limit frequency in a frequency range of the electromagnetic wave to be measured. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is 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 12 depends on claim 11, which depends on claim 10, which depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… obtaining the previous data according to wherein the length of the bus wiring is smaller than 1/2 wavelength or 1/4 wavelength in the upper limit frequency. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is 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 13 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the previous data is the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourier transformation calculated based on the voltage signal measured by connecting a capacitor having a fixed capacity between an output terminal connected to the dielectric load and ground potential and/or between a bus wiring connected to the transistor from the smoothing capacitor and the ground potential. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is 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 14 depends on Claim 13, which depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “ … obtaining the previous data according to wherein the capacitor includes an electrostatic capacitance of the capacitor and a parasitic inductance, and the electrostatic capacitance is set so that a resonance point by the electrostatic capacitance and the parasitic inductance is smaller than 30MHz or equal to or larger than 1 GHz to measure the voltage signal. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is 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 15 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the semiconductor device includes a half-bridge circuit made up of a first transistor and a second transistor as the transistor connected in series between a first wiring applying first potential and a second wiring applying second potential lower than the first potential, and the previous data is the voltage signal measured by connecting a dielectric load between an output terminal of the half-bridge circuit and the first wiring or the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourie transformation calculated based on the voltage signal measured by connecting the dielectric load between the output terminal and the second wiring of the half-bridge circuit. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 16 is 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 16 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the semiconductor device includes a three-phase full bridge circuit, the measured object includes a three-phase dielectric load connected between output terminals of the three-phase full bridge circuit, and the previous data is the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourie transformation calculated based on the voltage signal measured by connecting the three-phase dielectric load. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 17 is 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 17 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the semiconductor device includes a circuit including at least the transistor and a diode antiparallelly connected to the transistor, and the previous data is the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourie transformation calculated based on the voltage signal measured by switching-operating the circuit. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 18 is 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 18 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the previous data is the profile data of the voltage signal after the Fourie transformation calculated based on the voltage signal measured by setting a distance (DL) from the measured object to the antenna to 3 m to 10 m. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 19 is 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 19 depends on claim 18, which depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein when the distance from the measured object to the antenna is equal to or larger than 3 m, the electromagnetic strength measured with the distance of 3 m is Y, and when the electromagnetic strength in a case where an optional distance is A is X, the X is converted by an expression (1), and the previous data includes the profile data of the electromagnetic strength converted by the expression (1). X = Y +F 20 -log10(3) - 20 -log10(A) -(1) ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 20 is 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 20 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the predetermined temporal width with which the voltage signal is cut is set to 1/120 kHz or 1/100kilIz based on a resolution bandwidth according to CISPR standard and MIL standard.” , which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 21 is 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 21 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 21 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the predetermined temporal width with which the voltage signal is cut is set to an optional temporal width other than 1/120 kHz and 1/100kHz based on a resolution bandwidth according to CISPR standard and MIL standard. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 22 is 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 22 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein Gaussian window function of an expression (2) is used for the Fourier transformation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 23 is 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 23 depends on Claim 9, which depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 23 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein Kaiser window function of an expression (3) is used for the Fourier transformation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by FUJITA; Miwako et al. (US publication #US 20200217884 A1; provided by the applicant; hereinafter Fujita) . Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches, An electromagnetic wave calculation system (abstract) calculating an electromagnetic wave (abstract) generated in a semiconductor device (par.86 semiconductor device 10) , comprising: an electromagnetic wave simulator (fig. 5 shows an EM wave simulation; the simulator is the evaluation benchmark output unit) ; and a previous data memory (par.164 teaches all types of memory, par. 79 teaches storage unit 240; all of which inherently saves previous, current and future data) , wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator and the previous data memory have communication with each other via network (par. 79 “the storage unit 240 may be configured as a database connected to the body of the evaluation apparatus 200 via a network or the like.”) , the previous data memory records electromagnetic wave data of the semiconductor device corresponding to a type name of the semiconductor (par.80 teaches comparison unit 250 that records EM wave data of semiconductor corresponding to a type name.) and a usage condition of the semiconductor device as previous data (par.72 teaches a driving condition setting unit which records a usage condition) , and when the type name and the usage condition of the semiconductor device are inputted, the electromagnetic wave simulator has communication with the previous data memory, and outputs the electromagnetic wave data under the usage condition of the semiconductor device (par.81 “The evaluation unit 260 is configured to evaluate a relative change in intensity of the radiated noise of the semiconductor device 10, based on a comparison result of the comparison unit 250. The evaluation unit 260 is configured to output an evaluation result.”) . Regarding claim 2, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator is built up on a computer connected to the network (par.166) . Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic wave simulator is accessed from a homepage of a company of a user of the semiconductor device (Par.134 “receive information of the drive signal input by a user of the combined evaluation apparatus 300 such as a designer or user of the equipped apparatus.”; par.166 teaches instructions provided to the internet which inherently teaches a homepage of a company) . Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device includes a transistor (Fig.3 shows the semiconductor device 10 including transistors) , and stored in the previous data memory is profile data of electromagnetic wave strength at a time switching-operating the transistor under the usage condition for each the type name of the semiconductor device (par.135 “a plurality of evaluation benchmarks for the semiconductor device 10 that are output by the evaluation apparatus 200 in correspondence with switching operations under a plurality of different conditions are acquired (S520).”) . Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 4, wherein the usage condition includes a voltage value applied to the semiconductor device (par.60 teaches voltage as a usage condition) , a current value (par.60 teaches current value as a usage condition) of current flowing in the semiconductor device, and a carrier frequency as a total number of switching of the transistor (Par.87 “switching operations of the semiconductor include an ON operation of IGBT, an OFF operation of IGBT, a forward recovery operation of a diode and a reverse recovery operation of a diode. Since the reverse recovery operation is fast in terms of operating speed, it has a high influence on the radiated noise in a frequency band of 10 MHz or higher, particularly.”) . Regarding claim 6, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 4, wherein the usage condition includes a length and inductance (par.159 “par.159 “the shape, dimension, and material of wirings (wires, lead flames and the like) bonded to surface electrodes formed on the semiconductor device”) of a bus wiring connected to the transistor from a smoothing capacitor connected to the semiconductor device (fig.3 shows a bus wiring connected to the transistor from a smoothing capacitor connected to the semiconductor device.) . Regarding claim 7, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 4, wherein the usage condition includes a dead time as an interval period between pulses of a pulse signal for turning on and off the transistor (fig.2 and par.60 teach dead time as an interval period between pulses of a pulse signal for turning on and off the transistor.) . Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches the electromagnetic wave calculation system according to claim 4, wherein the usage condition includes an output frequency of the semiconductor device (par.78 “The evaluation benchmark output unit 230 is configured to output frequency components of the voltage variation detected by the detection unit 220”) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 20020037596 A1; Yamaguchi, Tetsuya is a Simulator of semiconductor device circuit characteristic and simulation method. US 20010027386 A1; MILSOM, ROBERT F. is a time-domain circuit modeller. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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. /CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 19 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 20 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 21 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 22 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/539,490 Page 23 Art Unit: 2858