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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 12/17/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection previously set forth in the non-final rejection dated 09/25/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 9 the limitation(s):
communicating with test equipment during a test of a device;
sending, to the test equipment, a thermal metric; and
based on the thermal metric, sending a plurality of thermal reports to the test equipment to facilitate a thermal mitigation action by the test equipment.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “based on the thermal metric, sending a plurality of thermal reports to the test equipment to facilitate a thermal mitigation action by the test equipment”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processing system,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processing system” language, “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually sending a report based on some criteria.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “test equipment” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to test equipment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “communicating with test equipment during a test of a device” and “sending, to the test equipment, a thermal metric” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a processing system including a processor” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “test equipment” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “communicating” and “sending” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a processor” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: ***
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “test equipment,” “communicating,” “sending,” and “a processor” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claims 1 and 16 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 1 and 16 recite the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “responsive to the temperature, providing a metric to the test equipment”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually providing a metric based on some criteria.
The limitation(s) regarding “sending, based on the thermal metric, by the processing system, a plurality of thermal reports to the test equipment to facilitate a thermal mitigation action by the test equipment”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually sending a report based on a metric.
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one internal temperature sensor,” “receiving from with test equipment an indication the device is undergoing a test,” and “receiving from the at least one temperature sensor to determine a temperature during the test” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “receiving, by the processing system, the thermal mitigation action from the test equipment” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as not imposing meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention.
The limitation(s) regarding “a memory” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2, 4, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 3, 15, and 18 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 5-8 recites generic computer components performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khandhar et al. (US 20200379034 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16. Khandhar teaches:
A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor (See Fig. 2A, Fig. 4, and para[0023]: The one or more processors 220 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 202 to perform various functions for device 200 and to process data.);
at least one internal temperature sensor coupled to the processing system (See Fig. 4 and para[0076]: Electronic device 300 (e.g., corresponding to electronic device 200 and/or one of the electronic devices in FIGS. 1A-1E) can include… one or more temperature sensors 308A-N.); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (See Fig. 2A, Fig. 4, and para[0023]: The one or more processors 220 run or execute various software programs and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 202 to perform various functions for device 200 and to process data.), the operations comprising:
receiving from test equipment an indication the device is undergoing a test (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and para[0086]: a system (e.g., device under test) can receive a request to simulate a first thermal condition. In some examples, the request can correspond to the simulation of a thermal condition (e.g., according to a Fair, Severe or Critical thermal profile) initiated in an IDE of a tester device.);
monitoring the at least one temperature sensor to determine a temperature during the test (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and para[0095]: The system can determine, at 715, whether the actual temperature measurements of one or more temperature sensors are within or outside a temperature range (or one or more temperature ranges assuming different temperature ranges for different temperature sensors) for the simulated thermal condition.); and
responsive to the temperature, providing a metric to the test equipment. (See Fig. 7 and para[0095]: In some examples, transitioning from the simulated temperatures to actual temperatures for setting the one or more parameters can terminate the simulation (and the user can, optionally, be notified in the simulation window 420 or other user interface if tester device 402).).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Khandhar teaches the additional limitation:
based on the thermal metric, sending a plurality of thermal reports to the test equipment to facilitate a thermal mitigation action by the test equipment (See Fig. 8, para[0082], and para[0095]: As a result of the simulation, application process 432 can also receive a notification (e.g., a flag or state from a thermal manager 440 or from another of hardware components 460). The receipt of the notification can allow the developer to test the operation of the application to receiving this notification relating to the thermal state. When the actual temperature measurement(s) are outside the temperature range(s), the one or more parameters can be set, at 720, based on the actual temperature measurements from the temperature sensors rather than based on the simulated thermal condition.).
Regarding Claim 16, Khandhar teaches the additional limitation:
receiving, by the processing system, the thermal mitigation action from the test equipment (See para[0090]: a cooling fan can turn on under certain thermal conditions (e.g., when temperatures increase above a threshold, such as in a severe or critical thermal state) or turned off under certain thermal conditions (e.g., when temperatures decrease below a threshold, such as in the fair or normal thermal states).).
Regarding Claims 2, 14, and 17. Khandhar teaches:
The device of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, or the method of claim 16,
wherein the metric comprises the temperature (See Fig. 8 and para[0075]: the temperature measurements of the one or more temperature sensors can continue to be monitored and used to trigger transitions to and/or from the second mode.).
Regarding Claims 3, 15, and 18. Khandhar teaches:
The device of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, or the method of claim 16,
wherein the metric comprises a determination that the temperature has exceeded a threshold (See para[0095]: The system can determine, at 715, whether the actual temperature measurements of one or more temperature sensors are within or outside a temperature range.).
Regarding Claim 5. Khandhar teaches:
The device of claim 1,
wherein communicating with the test equipment is performed over a wireless connection (See Fig. 2A and para[0024]: RF circuitry 208 receives and sends RF signals, also called electromagnetic signals. RF circuitry 208 converts electrical signals to/from electromagnetic signals and communicates with communications networks and other communications devices via the electromagnetic signals.).
Regarding Claim 6. Khandhar teaches:
The device of claim 1,
wherein communicating with the test equipment is performed over a wired connection (See Fig. 2A and para[0043]: External port 224 (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB), FIREWIRE, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), etc.) is adapted for coupling directly to other devices or indirectly over a network.).
Regarding Claim 8. Khandhar teaches:
The device of claim 6,
wherein the wired connection is coupled to a digital port on the device (See para[0043]: External port 224 (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB), FIREWIRE, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), etc.) is adapted for coupling directly to other devices or indirectly over a network (e.g., the Internet, wireless LAN, etc.). In some examples, the external port is a multi-pin (e.g., 30-pin) connector that is the same as, or similar to and/or compatible with, the 30-pin connector used on iPod® (trademark of Apple Inc.) devices. In some examples, the external port is a multi-pin (e.g., 8-pin) connector that is the same as, or similar to and/or compatible with the Lightning® (trademark of Apple Inc.) connector.).
Regarding Claim 10. Khandhar teaches:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9,
wherein the thermal mitigation action comprises a passive process (See Fig. 7 and para[0090]: For example, under certain thermal conditions, one or more hardware components can be disabled (turned off) or enabled (turned on).).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19. Khandhar teaches:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, or the method of claim 16,
wherein the passive process comprises pausing the test (See Fig. 7 and para[0095]: In some examples, the simulation can be paused (and the user can, optionally, be notified in the simulation window 420 or other user interface that the simulation has been paused).).
Regarding Claim 12. Khandhar teaches:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9,
wherein the thermal mitigation action comprises an active process (See Fig. 7 and para[0090]: For example, a cooling fan can turn on under certain thermal conditions (e.g., when temperatures increase above a threshold, such as in a severe or critical thermal state).).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20. Khandhar teaches:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12, or the method of claim 16,
wherein the active process comprises causing a cooling medium to exchange heat with the device (See Fig. 7 and para[0090]: For example, a cooling fan can turn on under certain thermal conditions (e.g., when temperatures increase above a threshold, such as in a severe or critical thermal state).) (Examiner note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of cooling medium includes air.).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandhar et al. (US 20200379034 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Werner et al. (US 20230184823 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. Khandhar is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 1,
wherein the metric comprises a rate of change of the temperature.
Nevertheless Werner teaches:
wherein the metric comprises a rate of change of the temperature (See para[0107]: According to some embodiments, the handler 430 may be configured to detect a temperature malfunction. This may occur when a temperature gradient exceeds a specific predetermined threshold or predefined gradient.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khandhar wherein the metric comprises a rate of change of the temperature such as that of Werner. Werner teaches, “the handler 430 may be configured to detect a temperature malfunction” (See para[0107]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Khandhar, because determining a rate of change of temperature would have helped to detect a temperature malfunction, as recognized by Werner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandhar et al. (US 20200379034 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wright (US 20060233111 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Khandhar is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 6,
wherein the wired connection is coupled to a radio frequency (RF) port on the device.
Nevertheless Wright teaches:
wherein the wired connection is coupled to a radio frequency (RF) port on the device (See Fig. 2, para[0009] and para[0042]: a system for testing wireless devices includes an RF backplane and a channel emulation module couplable to the RF backplane. One or more RF combiners may be coupled to the RF backplane, wherein each of the RF combiners includes a plurality of RF connectors adapted to exchange RF signals with a first test device. Shielded RF cables 33 and 41 are coupled to the RF antenna ports of the test devices, and are used to couple the DUTs and test devices to their respective RF combiner and channel emulation connectors.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khandhar wherein the wired connection is coupled to a radio frequency (RF) port on the device such as that of Wright. Wright teaches, “Shielded RF cables 33 and 41 are coupled to the RF antenna ports of the test devices, and are used to couple the DUTs and test devices to their respective RF combiner and channel emulation connectors. Isolating the devices and their RF signals using test heads and cables in this manner helps to ensure that the behavior of the devices is attributable only to the test stimuli, the application of which is controlled by the channel emulation module 20” (See para[0042]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Khandhar, because using an RF port would have helped to isolate a device under test and its respective RF signals from other devices and RF signals ensuring behavior of the devices is attributable only to the test stimuli, as recognized by Wright.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: By contrast, amended claim 9 specifies "communicating with test equipment during a test of a device,""sending, to the test equipment, a thermal metric," and "based on the thermal metric, sending a plurality of thermal reports to the test equipment to facilitate a thermal mitigation action by the test equipment."
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshino et al. (US 20190086468 A1) discloses using internal thermal sensors during an automated test of a device (See Abstract and Fig. 2).
Chen et al. (US 20180340974 A1) discloses using internal temperature sensors during an automated test of a device (See Abstract, Fig. 1, and para[0025]).
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857