DETAILED ACTION
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
Application 18/127,819, filed on 03/29/2023, claims priority to CHINA 202211304066.0 filed on 10/24/2022 and CHINA 202211304061.8 filed on10/24/2022.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments to the claims submitted on 03/12/2026 wherein claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-19 are pending and have been considered below. Claims 3 and 13 have been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “two counting units” (claim 1, 9, 10, 11, 18), “a count-control unit” (claim 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18), and “a positive-temperature-frequency conversion unit” (claim 11), “temperature-sensing data processing module” (claim 11), and “frequency conversion module.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted as hardware to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, in at least paragraphs 0024 and 0041, as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A temperature-sensing data processing module, comprising:
two counting units, wherein each of the two counting units is an application-specific integrated circuit and configured to set one of a reference clock signal and a frequency conversion signal to be a counting-clock signal and the other of the reference clock signal and the frequency conversion signal to be a counting-sample signal according to a control signal, and during a sampling period consisting of at least one signal cycle of the counting-sample signal, one of the two counting units counts the number of rising edges of the counting-clock signal, and the other of the two counting units counts the number of falling edges of the counting-clock signal; and
a count-control unit, being an application-specific integrated circuit and configured to generate a doubled-frequency counting value based on a sum of the number of rising edges and the number of falling edges and generate a temperature value based on the doubled-frequency counting value and a temperature-frequency fitting function;
wherein in response to a frequency of the reference clock signal being higher than or equal to a frequency of the frequency conversion signal, the temperature-frequency fitting function is expressed as:
T= TO + (((2 x F1) /Y) x N - U x FO) / E
wherein T is the temperature value, TO is a reference temperature, F1 is the frequency of the reference clock signal, Y is the doubled-frequency counting value, N is the number of the signal periods of the counting-sample signal included in the sampling period, U is a frequency-unit conversion coefficient, FO is a frequency value at the reference temperature, and E is a temperature-frequency conversion coefficient.
Claim 11 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A temperature sensor, comprising a frequency conversion module and a temperature-sensing data processing module, wherein the temperature-sensing data processing module is electrically connected to the frequency conversion module, and the frequency conversion module comprises a positive-temperature-frequency conversion unit being a current- generating circuit, an operational amplifier, a voltage-controlled oscillator, a non-overlapping signal generator, and a charging and discharging circuit and is configured to generate a frequency conversion signal; wherein the temperature-sensing data processing module comprises:
two counting units, wherein each of the two counting units is an application-specific integrated circuit and configured to set one of a reference clock signal and the frequency conversion signal to be a counting-clock signal and the other of the reference clock signal and the frequency conversion signal to be a counting-sample signal according to a control signal, and during a sampling period consisting of at least one signal cycle of the counting-sample signal, one of the two counting units counts the number of rising edges of the counting-clock signal, and the other of the two counting units counts the number of falling edges of the counting-clock signal; and
a count-control unit, being an application-specific integrated circuit and configured to generate a doubled-frequency counting value based on a sum of the number of rising edges and the number of falling edges and generate a temperature value based on the doubled-frequency counting value and a temperature-frequency fitting function;
wherein in response to a frequency of the reference clock signal being higher than or equal to a frequency of the frequency conversion signal, the temperature-frequency fitting function is expressed as:
T= TO + (((2 x F1) /Y) x N - U x FO) / E
wherein T is the temperature value, TO is a reference temperature, F1 is the frequency of the reference clock signal, Y is the doubled-frequency counting value, N is the number of the signal periods of the counting-sample signal included in the sampling period, U is a frequency-unit conversion coefficient, FO is a frequency value at the reference temperature, and E is a temperature-frequency conversion coefficient.
Regarding the underlined limitation “configured to set one of a reference clock signal and a frequency conversion signal to be a counting-clock signal and the other of the reference clock signal and the frequency conversion signal to be a counting-sample signal according to a control signal” is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for configuring a reference clock and frequency conversion signal where the programming routines and patterns are an algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or a set of mental steps.
Regarding the underlined limitation “counts the number of rising edges of the counting-clock signal, and the other of the two counting units counts the number of falling edges of the counting-clock signal” is an abstract idea as it is an algorithm or program for counting where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or it is a set of mental steps. Additionally, the clock signal does not add significantly more or a practical application as a clock is common within a generic computer.
Regarding the underlined limitation generate a doubled-frequency counting value based on a sum of the number of rising edges and the number of falling edges and generate a temperature value based on the doubled-frequency counting value and a temperature-frequency fitting function” is an abstract idea as it is an algorithm or program for generating counting values and temperature where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or a set of mental steps.
Regarding the underlined limitation “T= TO + (((2 x F1) /Y) x N - U x FO) / E
wherein T is the temperature value, TO is a reference temperature, F1 is the frequency of the reference clock signal, Y is the doubled-frequency counting value, N is the number of the signal periods of the counting-sample signal included in the sampling period, U is a frequency-unit conversion coefficient, FO is a frequency value at the reference temperature, and E is a temperature-frequency conversion coefficient” is an abstract idea as it is a mathematical equation which is a mathematical routine.
Regarding the underlined limitation “configured to generate a frequency conversion signal” is an abstract idea as it is an algorithm or program for generating a conversion signal where the algorithm or program is a mathematical routine or a set of mental steps using conversion tables.
In summary, the underlined steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system including “two counting units, wherein each of the two counting units is an application-specific integrated circuit,” “a count-control unit, being an application-specific integrated circuit,” and “the frequency conversion module comprises a positive-temperature-frequency conversion unit being a current- generating circuit, an operational amplifier, a voltage-controlled oscillator, a non-overlapping signal generator, and a charging and discharging circuit” do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations such as “generate/generated” (claim 2,9,11, 12), “determine” (claim 5, 6, 7, 15, 16), “counting” (claim 9 and 18) and the mathematical equation claims 4 and 14 further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significant more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
The additional limitations of “resets” (claim 8 and 17) and “positively correlated” (claim 19) equate to extrasolution data activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significant more than the abstract idea
Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments (remarks), filed on 03/12/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 page 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that aspects of the claimed invention cannot be accomplished via human mental work and therefore the claims should not be directed towards an abstract idea. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2, the limitations of the claim are analyzed under two classifications (1) the abstract idea of the claim and (2) additional elements of the claim. Applicant asserts these features are not abstract ideas performable in the human mind: “two counting units, wherein each of the two counting units is an application-specific integrated circuit,” “a count-control unit, being an application-specific integrated circuit,” and “a frequency conversion module and a temperature-sensing data processing module, wherein the temperature-sensing data processing module is electrically connected to the frequency conversion module, and the frequency conversion module comprises a positive-temperature-frequency conversion unit being a current- generating circuit, an operational amplifier, a voltage-controlled oscillator, a non-overlapping signal generator, and a charging and discharging circuit.” The amendments necessitate re-evaluation and the Examiner agrees that the HARDWARE limitations the applicant asserts are not a mental process and are instead analyzed under prong 2 and step 2B as additional elements to the abstract idea. However, the use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1).
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 page 8-10 of Applicant’s remarks, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with regard to the amendments and the § 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights