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.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 interpretation and rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn in part and Maintained in part.
Due to the addition of “Non-transitory” to claim 10, it is now directed to eligible subject matter under step 1.
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: Claim 1 provides a practical solution of obtaining electron swarm parameters that achieves technical advantages over conventional approaches in the art and the claims recite an improvement in the technical field of plasma.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as this is not expressed through the additional elements of the claim. 2106.05(f): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” and see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer… iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase…” As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 2106.04(II)(A)(2): "Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.")"
Applicant’s Argument: Claim 1 solves actual problems in a meaningful way.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the solving of an equation is still math and the output of the math to be applied to field is not present in the claim. 2106.04(I): "Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible). This is because such a patent would "in practical effect [] be a patent on the [abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon] itself." Benson, 409 U.S. at 71- 72, 175 USPQ at 676"
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims 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.
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 of a coupled electron charge density and different types of ion charge densities;” 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, 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 “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 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 “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 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.
Yang et al. “Boltzmann equation studies on electron swarm parameters in Townsend breakdown of copper vapor plasma using independently assessed electron-collision cross sections”: also teaches a assessing electron collisions in plasma using a Townsend method.
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 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