DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to McRO.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not provide a clear improvement to technology or computer functionality. The claims of McRo recite automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation, which provided a clear improvement to a computer functionality (i.e. computer animation). In contrast, the instant claims do not recite an analogous improvement to a computer functionality. The claims recite a mathematical concept performed by a CPU, GPU and CUDA. The claims employ generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea that, even while limiting the use of the idea to a particular technical environment, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to Thales.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees as there is no particular configuration of sensors in the claims. Thales Visionix was found to be an improvement to technology because of the particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Here, the claims at issue do not have a particular arrangement of sensors and do not use a particular method with raw sensor data. The claims require obtaining measured data, simulating a set of parameters, and outputting those parameters. The use of generic computer components taking in measured data without using sensor data from a particular arrangement of sensors and a particular method of using raw data, makes the current claims distinguishable from Thales Visionix.
Applicant’s Argument: The GPU/CUDA address a specific technical challenge.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument because these components merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Additionally the repeated use of a genetic algorithm is not required by the claim as argued by Applicant.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim defines a concrete technological application.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees as it is not expressed through the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Applicant’s Argument: The GPU/CUDA result in the claim reciting significantly more.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument because these components merely use a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a pulsed Townsend experimental platform” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 9 is directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention Claims 10 is directed to a computer readable medium, which is a signal per se, which is not a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 9-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 9-10 recite the abstract idea of electron swarm parameter calculation, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "establishing an electron avalanche space-time development model, wherein the model describing a coupled electron charge density and different types of ion charge densities and including processes of ionization, attachment, detachment, and ion conversion;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging how to create a model from of the calculations, alternatively this can be viewed as mathematical concepts in the form a series of calculations using the equation in claim 3. Additionally, the limitation of “computing the discharge current waveform of the gas under the reduced field intensity through a finite volume method according to the electron avalanche space-time development model, wherein a discharge space is divided into one-dimensional grids and a time infinitesimal is defined based on an electron drift velocity, and obtaining a computed current waveform; and” covers mental processes including evaluating a current using a series of equations, alternatively this can be viewed as mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations using the equations in specification [0055]-[0070]. Additionally, the limitation of “obtaining, … the electron swarm parameters of the gas under the reduced field intensity with a minimum deviation between the measured current waveform and the computed current waveform as an optimization target …”, covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset using an optimized deviation between measured and simulated waveforms alternatively this can be viewed as mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations using the equation in specification [0072]-[0083]. That is other than reciting “using a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a compute unified device architecture (CUDA) device of a computer” and “through a genetic algorithm”, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, or alternatively mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional element of “a genetic algorithm”, “a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a compute unified device architecture (CUDA) device of a computer” as well as “a pulsed Townsend experimental platform” in claim 2, and the computer components in claims 9 and 10, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “wherein computation of current waveforms for different decision variables is performed in parallel on the graphics processing unit (GPU) via the compute unified device architecture (CUDA) platform”, “outputting, by the computer, the obtained electron swarm parameters of the gas as an input for plasma simulation” in claim 1, is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “measuring, based on a pulsed Townsend experimental platform, a discharge current waveform of gas under a reduced field intensity, and obtaining a measured current waveform;” in claims 1 and 9-10, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals (test on a system) to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 9-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional element of “a genetic algorithm”, “a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a compute unified device architecture (CUDA) device of a computer” as well as “a pulsed Townsend experimental platform” in claim 2, and the computer components in claims 9 and 10, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “wherein computation of current waveforms for different decision variables is performed in parallel on the graphics processing unit (GPU) via the compute unified device architecture (CUDA) platform”, “outputting, by the computer, the obtained electron swarm parameters of the gas as an input for plasma simulation.” in claim 1, is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “measuring, based on a pulsed Townsend experimental platform, a discharge current waveform of gas under a reduced field intensity, and obtaining a measured current waveform;” in claims 1 and 9-10, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals (test on a system) to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the equation used in the reduced intensity field, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the development of the model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art has been applied. See Non-Final dated 7/7/2025 for reasons why the claims of record overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Urquijo, J., et al. "A numerical simulation code for electronic and ionic transients from a time-resolved pulsed Townsend experiment”: Also teaches a pulsed Townsend experiment for determining electron parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights