CTFR 18/245,613 CTFR 91262 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 13-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. In sum, claims 13-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows. Step 1 - Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that claims 13-17 and 19-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process and claims 21-23 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Step 2A, Prong One - Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, with respect to claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23, the claims recite the abstract ideas of (A) monitoring a sensor (B) determining a model temperature of the sensor (C) integrating changes in the sensor temperature when the changes in the sensor temperature exceed a predetermined first threshold value (D) integrating changes in the model temperature when the changes in the model temperature exceed a predetermined second threshold value (D1) wherein the sensor temperature changes and model temperature changes are integrated over time when the respective thresholds are exceeded (E) comparing the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with a predetermined fourth threshold value (F) comparing the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with the predetermined fourth threshold value when the integral of the changes in the model temperature exceeds a predetermined third threshold value (G) low-pass filtering the sensor temperature and/or the model temperature (H) forming a sensor temperature quotient and/or a model temperature quotient with a predetermined time step (I) identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor (J) identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature falls below the predetermined fourth threshold value (K) identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor (L) identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature reaches or exceeds the predetermined fourth threshold value (M) wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered and a difference quotient of the filtered sensor temperature is formed using a predetermined time step prior to integration (N) wherein the identification of removal or installation of the sensor is performed based on whether the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature follows the integral of the changes in the model temperature, independently of an absolute sensor temperature value Mental Process: Steps A, B, I, and K fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process , that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. , 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. see also In re Grams , 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer , 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”). For example, a human could perform steps A, B, I, and K entirely mentally when visually inspecting the sensor and with a pen and paper to determine a model of the sensor. These limitations exemplify abstract idea of a mental process since details include concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource , 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson .”). Mathematical Concepts: (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, Mathematical Calculations) In addition, limitations C-H, J, and L-N recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept in addition to being a mental process since the limitations invoke the functions of comparing a value with a threshold, taking an integral of a temperature function, filtering the temperature function with a low pass filter, and taking a quotient of two values. The instant Specification fails to attribute special definitions to the language used in limitations C-H, J, and L-N. Consequently, the words and phrases of the limitations have been given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01). These steps are common computer processing functions that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)II). See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter eligibility p. 3-4 “Mathematical Relationships” and “Mathematical Calculations” (“A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols . . . [t]here is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981) , Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) , Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978) , and Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers”) . Step 2A, Prong Two - Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. ( See, e.g. , MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic “non-transitory computer readable medium” outside of the abstract idea. In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.) , 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. , 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d , 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional elements of a sensor, an internal combustion engine, a diesel engine, a particle sensor, or an exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g) In addition, limitations such as “determining a sensor temperature using the sensor” and “wherein the determination of the model temperature is based at least on an exhaust gas temperature and/or a wall temperature of the exhaust gas region at an installation location of the sensor” constitute insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski , 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds , 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource , 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, limitations such as “the method is carried out in the context of on-board diagnostics of the diesel engine” constitute insignificant post-solution activity . The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski , 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr , 450 U.S. at 191–92). Step 2B - Revised Guidance: Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a sensor, a controller, an internal combustion engine, a diesel engine, a particle sensor, or an exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming ( See, e.g. , MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g. , MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice , 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations , include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more ” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed. The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea ( e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g. , Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment ( e.g., a sensor, a controller, an internal combustion engine, a diesel engine, a particle sensor, or an exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine in Claims 13 and 19-23). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genssle et al. (PG Pub 2012/0120981) in view of Baumann et al. (PG Pub 2011/0252768) . Regarding claim 13, Genssle teaches a method for monitoring a sensor (figure 1, elements 20 and 14; paragraph 32) arranged in the exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine (paragraph 32; figure 1, elements 10 and 17), comprising the following steps: determining a sensor temperature using the sensor (paragraph 34; figure 2, element 29); determining a model temperature of the sensor (paragraph 14); integrating changes in the sensor temperature (paragraph 42) when the changes in the sensor temperature exceed a predetermined first threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37) and integrating changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 42 and 43) when changes in the model temperature exceed a predetermined second threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37), wherein the sensor temperature changes and the model temperature changes are integrated over time when the respective thresholds are exceeded (paragraphs 42-46; figure 4, phases 37 and 38); and comparing the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with a predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraph 42; figure 4), identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature falls below the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 32), and identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature reaches or exceeds the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 31), wherein a difference quotient of the filtered sensor temperature is formed using a predetermined time step prior to integration (paragraphs 19 and 45), wherein the identification of removal or installation of the sensor is performed based on whether the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature follows the integral of the changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 14, 42, and 43; figure 4, elements 31 and 32), independently of an absolute sensor temperature value (paragraphs 15 and 42). Genssle is silent as to wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered. Baumann teaches a method wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the exhaust system temperature sensor of Genssle with the method of low-pass filtering the output of a temperature sensor in Baumann since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Baumann states that a temperature sensor in an exhaust system outputs a signal that needs filtering of some sort in order for it to be usable by the controller and that using a low-pass filter is one method of making the signal usable in a method like that of Genssle. Regarding claim 14, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising: comparing the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with the predetermined fourth threshold value when the integral of the changes in the model temperature exceeds a predetermined third threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37). Regarding claim 15, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the determination of the model temperature is based at least on an exhaust gas temperature and/or a wall temperature of the exhaust gas region at an installation location of the sensor (paragraphs 13, 14, and 17). Regarding claim 16, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13. Genssle is silent as to further comprising low-pass filtering the sensor temperature and/or the model temperature. Baumann teaches a method further comprising low-pass filtering the sensor temperature and/or the model temperature (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the exhaust system temperature sensor of Genssle with the method of low-pass filtering the output of a temperature sensor in Baumann since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Baumann states that a temperature sensor in an exhaust system outputs a signal that needs filtering of some sort in order for it to be usable by the controller and that using a low-pass filter is one method of making the signal usable in a method like that of Genssle. Regarding claim 17, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising: forming a sensor temperature quotient and/or a model temperature quotient with a predetermined time step (paragraphs 19 and 45). Regarding claim 19, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the sensor is a particle sensor (paragraphs 33 and 35). Regarding claim 20, Genssle teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the internal combustion engine is a diesel engine (paragraphs 32 and 47), wherein the method is carried out in the context of on-board diagnostics of the diesel engine (paragraphs 32 and 46). Regarding claim 21, Genssle teaches an apparatus configured to monitor a sensor (figure 1, elements 20 and 14; paragraph 32) arranged in an exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine (paragraph 32; figure 1, elements 10 and 17), wherein the apparatus comprises: a control configured to (paragraph 32; figure 1 element 14): determine a sensor temperature using the sensor (paragraph 34; figure 2, element 29); determine a model temperature of the sensor (paragraph 14); integrate changes in the sensor temperature (paragraph 42) when the changes in the sensor temperature exceed a predetermined first threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37) and integrate changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 42 and 43) when changes in the model temperature exceed a predetermined second threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37) wherein the sensor temperature changes and the model temperature changes are integrated over time when the respective thresholds are exceeded (paragraphs 42-46; figure 4, phases 37 and 38); and compare the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with a predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraph 42; figure 4), identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature falls below the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 32), and identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature reaches or exceeds the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 31), wherein a difference quotient of the filtered sensor temperature is formed using a predetermined time step prior to integration (paragraphs 19 and 45), wherein the identification of removal or installation of the sensor is performed based on whether the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature follows the integral of the changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 14, 42, and 43; figure 4, elements 31 and 32), independently of an absolute sensor temperature value (paragraphs 15 and 42). Genssle is silent as to wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered. Baumann teaches wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the exhaust system temperature sensor of Genssle with the method of low-pass filtering the output of a temperature sensor in Baumann since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Baumann states that a temperature sensor in an exhaust system outputs a signal that needs filtering of some sort in order for it to be usable by the controller and that using a low-pass filter is one method of making the signal usable in a method like that of Genssle. Regarding claim 22, Genssle teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program (paragraph 32; figure 1 element 14) for monitoring a sensor (figure 1, elements 20 and 14; paragraph 32) arranged in the exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine (paragraph 32; figure 1, elements 10 and 17), the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the following steps (paragraph 32; figure 1 element 14): determining a sensor temperature using the sensor (paragraph 34; figure 2, element 29); determining a model temperature of the sensor (paragraph 14); integrating changes in the sensor temperature (paragraph 42) when the changes in the sensor temperature exceed a predetermined first threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37) and integrating changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 42 and 43) when changes in the model temperature exceed a predetermined second threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37), wherein the sensor temperature changes and the model temperature changes are integrated over time when the respective thresholds are exceeded (paragraphs 42-46; figure 4, phases 37 and 38); and comparing the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with a predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraph 42; figure 4), identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature falls below the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 32), and identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature reaches or exceeds the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 31), wherein a difference quotient of the filtered sensor temperature is formed using a predetermined time step prior to integration (paragraphs 19 and 45), wherein the identification of removal or installation of the sensor is performed based on whether the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature follows the integral of the changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 14, 42, and 43; figure 4, elements 31 and 32), independently of an absolute sensor temperature value (paragraphs 15 and 42). Genssle is silent as to wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered. Baumann teaches wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the exhaust system temperature sensor of Genssle with the method of low-pass filtering the output of a temperature sensor in Baumann since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Baumann states that a temperature sensor in an exhaust system outputs a signal that needs filtering of some sort in order for it to be usable by the controller and that using a low-pass filter is one method of making the signal usable in a method like that of Genssle. Regarding claim 23, Genssle teaches an electronic control device (paragraph 32; figure 1 element 14) for monitoring a sensor (figure 1, elements 20 and 14; paragraph 32) arranged in the exhaust gas region of an internal combustion engine (paragraph 32; figure 1, elements 10 and 17), the electronic control device configured to: determine a sensor temperature using the sensor (paragraph 34; figure 2, element 29); determine a model temperature of the sensor (paragraph 14); integrate changes in the sensor temperature (paragraph 42) when the changes in the sensor temperature exceed a predetermined first threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37) and integrate changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 42 and 43) when changes in the model temperature exceed a predetermined second threshold value (paragraphs 43 and 44; figure 4, phase 37), wherein the sensor temperature changes and the model temperature changes are integrated over time when the respective thresholds are exceeded (paragraphs 42-46; figure 4, phases 37 and 38); and compare the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature with a predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraph 42; figure 4), identifying a removal and/or functionally improper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature falls below the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 32), and identifying an installation and/or functionally proper installation of the sensor when the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature reaches or exceeds the predetermined fourth threshold value (paragraphs 42-45; figure 4, line 31), wherein a difference quotient of the filtered sensor temperature is formed using a predetermined time step prior to integration (paragraphs 19 and 45), wherein the identification of removal or installation of the sensor is performed based on whether the integral of the changes in the sensor temperature follows the integral of the changes in the model temperature (paragraphs 14, 42, and 43; figure 4, elements 31 and 32), independently of an absolute sensor temperature value (paragraphs 15 and 42). Genssle is silent as to wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered. Baumann teaches wherein the sensor temperature is low-pass filtered (paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the exhaust system temperature sensor of Genssle with the method of low-pass filtering the output of a temperature sensor in Baumann since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Baumann states that a temperature sensor in an exhaust system outputs a signal that needs filtering of some sort in order for it to be usable by the controller and that using a low-pass filter is one method of making the signal usable in a method like that of Genssle . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to claims 13, 21, 22, and 23 are found in Genssle paragraphs 14, 42, and 43 and figure 4, elements 31 and 32 which state that it would be advantageous to compare the output of the temperature sensor to that of a modeled value over time as shown in figure 4, would allow the absolute temperature sensor output to be compared to an expected model temperature at the same times as it was expected to rise and fall, so the integrals would be similar . Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 07-40 AIA 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 SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm. 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, Pat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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. /Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 6 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 7 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 11 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 12 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 13 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 14 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/245,613 Page 15 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights