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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the prior restriction requirement of 09/25/2025 is withdrawn. All claims are rejoined and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In independent claims 1 and 15 the separate structures of the “reference voltage” and the “first temperature reference voltage” are indefinite. As best understood from the specification these appear to possibly be the same voltage taken at different points along the circuit, but they are also the same voltage, i.e. the reference voltage is what is given as the “first temperature reference voltage” at the op-amp. Fundamentally it is simply indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine if these are the same voltage.
As best understood while these are the same voltages the examiner is interpreting the “reference voltage” to be the supplied reference voltage up to the point of input into the op amp at which point it is the “first temperature reference voltage”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060202304 to Orr in view of “Demystifying the Operational Transconductance Amplifier” to Ramus and US 6079121 to Khadkikar.
Regarding claims 1, 15, 17 and 20
A programmable temperature regulation circuit (¶ [0049-0051]) for providing heat to a target area on a chip (abstract), the programmable temperature regulation circuit comprising: at least one heating element (30) including a first heating element (18) on the chip that converts a first amount of electrical power to heat (¶ [0050); at least one regulation loop (42, 44, 40) including a first regulation loop operatively connected to the heating element, wherein the first regulation loop controls provision of the first amount of electrical power to the first heating element (Fig. 9 and ¶ [0049-0051]), the first regulation loop including a comparator and flip-flop circuit that receives, at a first point in time, a first reference temperature voltage (¶ [0050] “first reference voltage”) and a first temperature feedback voltage (“first voltage drop across the heating resister), and a first temperature feedback voltage (second input to 42, i.e. not the “Vref” input in Fig. 9); and a reference voltage external to the chip that provides the first reference temperature voltage to the first operational transconductance amplifier (“Vref”; Fig. 9 and ¶ [0049-0051]).
With respect to the separate elements “reference voltage that provides the first reference temperature voltage” and “first reference temperature voltage”. The reference temperature voltage is considered the physical voltage input at the op amp where as the “reference voltage” is considered the voltage across the rest of the circuit which is analogous to Applicant’s invention.
Orr teaches that the control circuit comprises a comparator and flip-flop and thus fails to teach that the current control is obtained by means of an operational transconductance amplifier.
The function of the control loop circuitry in Orr is such that the comparator receives a reference voltage and feedback voltage and outputs a signal to the flip-flop which then drives a desired current to the heating element. As stated in Ramus another structure capable of performing such a function is a transconductance operational amplifier which intakes two voltage inputs a reference and feedback and outputs a desired drive voltage (see section 1.1) as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Orr such that the control circuitry consisting of a comparator and flip-flop is replaced by a transconductance op-amp, as taught by Ramos, as in this case they would perform the same function predictably with the same inputs and outputs and thus be nothing more than a simple substitution of known elements for performing the same function. This is a KSR type “b” rejection (see MPEP §2143).
Orr also does not explicitly teach what structure provides the feedback voltage and thus is silent as to whether it is a diode.
However, using diodes as temperature sensors to provide feedback voltage is well-known as discussed in Khadkikar (Col. 6, l. 39).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use a diode temperature sensor to provide the reference voltage, as such sensors are known in the art as shown by Khadkikar, for the purpose of using known reliable structure to provide the critical feedback voltage information.
Regarding claims 3 and 4
Orr as modified further teaches wherein the first heating element defines a closed boundary which is symmetrical in shape (Fig. 9); the area around the resistor may be considered a boundary. It may be arbitrarily drawn to be symmetrical across at least one axis. It is noted that Applicant’s closed boundary is merely an arbitrary schematic line.
Regarding claim 5
Orr as modified also teaches wherein the first diode is located on the chip within the closed boundary. Applicant’s closed boundary is merely an arbitrary schematic line so it is a trivial matter to simply draw a boundary that meets this limitation.
Regarding claim 6
Orr as modified also teaches wherein the first diode is equidistant from a first side and a second side of a set of opposing sides of the closed boundary. Similar to before the closed boundary is merely an arbitrary schematic line around the components in Applicant’s disclosure. As such it is a trivial matter to draw a boundary to meet this limitation.
Regarding claims 7 and 16
Orr as modified further teaches wherein the first operational transconductance amplifier generates a first output voltage based at least in part on the first temperature feedback voltage and the first reference temperature voltage, (Transconductance amps are used to control current based on voltage inputs; however, these currents will result in output voltages across the load resistors) and the first output voltage controls the provision of the first amount of electrical power to the first heating element (the amount of current and voltage drop across the resistor will necessarily define the provision of electrical power).
Regarding claims 11 and 12
Orr as modified further teaches wherein, at a second point in time, the first operational transconductance amplifier receives a subsequent reference temperature voltage from the reference voltage and a subsequent temperature feedback voltage from the first diode.
With respect to this limitation, it is noted that the modified Orr is a constant feedback loop. It is thus a trivial matter to arbitrarily define a first point in time and second point in time. And it is also an arbitrary matter to call these later taken voltage values as the subsequent reference temperature and subsequent feedback.
Regarding claims 13 and 14
The modified Orr teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to specifically teach:
further comprising: the at least one heating element includes a second heating element on the chip that converts a second amount of electrical power to heat; the at least one regulation loop includes a second regulation loop including:a second operational transconductance amplifier; anda second diode that provides a second temperature feedback voltage to the second operational transconductance amplifier; and
wherein the second operational transconductance amplifier receives the second temperature feedback voltage from the second diode and a second reference temperature voltage from the reference voltage, and generates a second output voltage based at least in part on the second temperature feedback voltage and the reference temperature, wherein the second output voltage controls the second amount of electrical power provided to the second heating element.
While this is a significant length of additional limitations it is noted that each “second” limitation above is merely an exact duplicate o the prior “first” structure each of which has been mapped in the prior rejections. Further, it is noted that Applicant does not state that the duplicate structure performs any differently or provides any unexpected function to distinguish from the first recited claim structures. As such it would have been an obvious matter of duplication of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the heating/op amp/control structure of Orr a second time for the purpose of providing additional heating as needed. Note that it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is duplicated structure performing the same function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr, Ramus and Khadkikar in further view of US 20060192805 to Eguchi et al.
Orr teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach that the heating element comprises a NMOS transistor. However, it is known to use heating elements comprising NMOS transistors. One such example is Eguchi which uses heating elements comprising NMOS transistors (¶ [0112]) as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the heating elements comprise NMOS transistors as taught by Eguchi as these are known and reliable structures to perform heating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 10, 18 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not recognize splitting the power supplies of the control circuitry in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761