DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 July 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
Claims 18-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07 July 2026.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims raise new issues of sufficient written description and claim clarity, as set forth in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 below.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the indicated allowability of claims 10-14 and 17 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 7 that claims 1 and 9 are allowable because the claims have been amended with limitations “similar to limitations” of claims that were previously indicated as allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to adequately disclose which “a resistor” is used in the step of “determine a resistance of the resistor using the interface circuitry”. Fig. 2 shows 17 resistors, R1-R17. None of those resistors is specifically disclosed as being the “a resistor” of claim 1. None of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 refer solely to “a resistor” as being part of the methods. These methods also fail to include a step of determining a resistance of a single resistor.
Further regarding claim 1, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose a step of “determine a first temperature rise of an adjustable resistance network responsive to the determined resistance of the resistor”.
Further regarding claim 1, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose a step of “compare the first temperature rise with a second temperature rise to obtain comparison results”. Additionally, none of the four methods include a step of determining a second temperature rise.
Further regarding claim 1, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose a step of “adjust the power supply control signal to change a voltage level or a duration of the power pulse responsive to the comparison results”. Instead, method 1300, for example, at step 1340, is disclosed as “adjust the power pulse based on comparison between calibration value and value based on measured resistance.” This might imply that a comparison between calibration value and value based on measured resistance is equivalent to comparison of a first temperature rise with a second temperature rise to obtain comparison results, but the specification fails to disclose or explain how these two different bases of adjusting the power supply control signal and/or the power pulse are equivalent.
Regarding claim 9, the specification fails to adequately disclose which “a resistor” is used in the step of measuring a resistance of a resistor. Fig. 2 shows 17 resistors, R1-R17. None of those resistors is specifically disclosed as being the “a resistor” of claim 9. None of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 refer solely to “a resistor” as being part of the methods. These methods also fail to include a step of measuring a resistance of a resistor.
Further regarding claim 9, the specification fails to adequately disclose or explain how the calibration value is proportional to a calibration temperature rise.
Further regarding claim 9, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose a step of “adjusting the power pulse based on a comparison between the calibration value and the first temperature rise”. Instead, method 1300, for example, at step 1340, discloses “adjust the power pulse based on comparison between calibration value and value based on measured resistance.” This might imply that a comparison between calibration value and value based on measured resistance is equivalent to a comparison between the calibration value and the first temperature rise, but the specification fails to disclose or explain how these two different bases of adjusting the power supply control signal and/or the power pulse are equivalent.
Regarding claim 10, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose steps of “comparing the temperature rise with the calibration value, in which the calibration value indicates a second temperature rise” or “adjusting the power pulse responsive to a comparison between the first temperature rise and the second temperature rise”. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose how the second temperature rise is determined, and how the temperatures used to determine the second temperature rise are different from the temperatures used to determine the first temperature rise.
Regarding claim 17, none of methods 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300 disclose the steps of “compare the first temperature rise to a second temperature rise indicated by the calibration value” or “adjust the power pulse responsive to the comparison”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4 and 6-17 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which resistor of resistors R1-R17 of Fig. 2 is the “a resistor” of claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what the second temperature rise is measuring. Presumably it is a second temperature rise of an adjustable resistance network responsive to the determined resistance of the resistor, but it is not clear what are the two different temperatures that are measured to determine the second temperature rise.
Further regarding claim 1, due to the lack of adequate written description of the claimed steps, as set forth above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), it is not possible to determine the scope of the claim with any certainty.
Regarding claim 9, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which resistor of resistors R1-R17 of Fig. 2 is the “a resistor” of claim 9.
Further regarding claim 9, due to the lack of adequate written description of the claimed steps, as set forth above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), it is not possible to determine the scope of the claim with any certainty.
Regarding claim 10, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what the second temperature rise is measuring. Presumably it is a second temperature rise of an adjustable resistance network responsive to the determined resistance of the resistor, but it is not clear what are the two different temperatures that are measured to determine the second temperature rise.
Regarding claim 17, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear which “the comparison” is used to adjust the power pulse – the “compare the first temperature rise with a second temperature rise to obtain comparison results” of claim 1, or the “compare the first temperature rise to a second temperature rise indicated by the calibration value” of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
21 August 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights