DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/07/2026.
2. Claim 9 is canceled.
3. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
a) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept. Claim 1 recites "measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing elements, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements" and using the measured temperature data to more accurately "determine a temperature at a target location." For at least these reasons, one of ordinary skill would understand claim 1, and the claims that depend therefrom, to recite patent-eligible subject matter. One of ordinary skill would also understand independent claims 14 and 20, and the claims that depend therefrom, to recite patent- eligible subject matter for reasons that should be appreciated from the language of the claims themselves and the discussion above.”
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
The claim limitation “measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing elements, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements” is additional element. However, this claim limitation, is recited at a high level of generality, and is nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional sensors and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As shown in the prior art, (see, Keskin et al. US 2018/0073933 (hereinafter, Keskin), ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C), and McNamara et al. US 2021/0202351 (hereinafter, McNamara), ([0028]), and Jung US 20130046999 (hereinafter, Jung), (Fig. 2, [0024])), all show that the measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing elements, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such that it amounts to no more than data collection or gathering required to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this elements does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The combination of elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing element, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements; and
determining a temperature at a target location using the temperatures measured at each of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements and operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing element, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements.”
The limitation “measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing element, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensing elements) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic thermal sensing.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using generic thermal sensing elements). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Keskin et al. US 2018/0073933 (hereinafter, Keskin), ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C), and McNamara et al. US 2021/0202351 (hereinafter, McNamara), ([0028]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 15, recite addition element of “wherein the thermal sensing elements comprise thermal diodes or thermal ring oscillators”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using thermal sensing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic thermal sensing. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Keskin ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C), and McNamara ([0028]).
Dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10-12, and 17-19, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 16, recite addition element of “wherein the target location comprises a processing unit”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Keskin ([0035]), and McNamara ([0027]).
Dependent claim 13, recites addition elements of “wherein altering operation of the semiconductor chip comprises one or more of decreasing voltage, decreasing clock frequency, and decreasing a number of instructions executed per cycle”. The steps of wherein altering operation of the semiconductor chip comprises one or more of decreasing voltage, decreasing clock frequency, and decreasing a number of instructions executed per cycle, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention is patent eligible based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A).
Independent claims 14 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1-8 and 10- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskin et al. US 2018/0073933 (hereinafter, Keskin), in view of Jung US 20130046999 (hereinafter, Jung).
10. Regarding claim 1, Keskin discloses a method comprising:
measuring, by a plurality of thermal sensing element, a temperature of a semiconductor chip at each location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C: ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C: the temperature manager 230 may estimate the temperature at a location within the region 210 based on an average of the temperature readings from the temperature sensors. The location within the region 210 may correspond to an average of the locations of the temperature sensors 211-214. In this regard, FIG. 7A shows a location 710 that corresponds to an average of the locations of the temperature sensors 211-214 (e.g., centroid of the temperature sensors 211-214)); and
determining a temperature at a target location using the temperatures measured at each of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C: temperature manager may estimate the temperature at location 710 based on the average of the temperature readings from the temperature sensors).
Keskin does not disclose:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state.
However, Jung discloses:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state ([0019], [0021]: Early hot spot prediction can be based on a previous power state of the semiconductor device, on monitoring a temperature associated with the semiconductor device, and/or on a measure of utilization of the processor of the semiconductor device. …[0022]-[0023]: A higher temperature can be predicted as the moving average of utilization increases…the moving average can be determined based on data captured when monitoring the variation of a supply voltage of the processor and/or an operating frequency of the processor, and/or like parameters of the processor….the temperature of a processor or a component can also be measured in real-time and used to predict the future temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Keskin to use determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to controlling temperature of semiconductor devices dynamically (Jung, [0003]).
11. Regarding claim 2, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin does not disclose:
wherein the thermal sensing elements comprise thermal diodes or thermal ring oscillators.
However, Jung discloses:
wherein the thermal sensing elements comprise thermal diodes or thermal ring oscillators ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Keskin to use wherein the thermal sensing elements comprise thermal diodes or thermal ring oscillators as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to measure temperature at a location efficiently (Jung, [0024]).
12. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
13. Regarding claim 3, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the target location comprises a hotspot ([0070]).
14. Regarding claim 4, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the target location comprises a processing unit ([0032]: The region 110 may include one or more blocks of circuitry (e.g., processors)).
15. Regarding claim 5, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from a temperature measured at a plurality of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements ([0065]). See also Jung (Fig. 2).
16. Regarding claim 6, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from a temperature differential between at least one pair of measured location temperatures ([0065], [0093]-[0094]).
17. Regarding claim 7, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from a temperature measured at one of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements and a temperature differential between at least one pair of measured temperatures ([0065], [0093]-[0094]).
18. Regarding claim 8, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from a temperature measured at one of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements and a weighted combination of temperature differentials between two or more pairs of predetermined location temperatures ([0065], [0093]-[0094]).
19. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 8.
20. Regarding claim 10, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from at least the temperature measured at the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing elements ([0065], [0104], [0109]-[0112], Figs. 7A-7C: performed to locate a hotspot on a chip according to certain aspects. In this regard, an exemplary binary search is described below with reference to FIGS. 12, 13A, 13B and 13C… The temperature manager 230 may then narrow the search to the region having the highest temperature).
21. Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 10.
22. Regarding claim 11, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the temperature at the target location is determined from at least the temperature at the location of the plurality of thermal sensing elements located nearest to the target location ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C).
23. Regarding claim 12, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses altering operation of the semiconductor chip based on the temperature at the target location ([0038], Figs. 7A-7C).
24. Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 12.
25. Regarding claim 13, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 12, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein altering operation of the semiconductor chip comprises one or more of decreasing voltage, decreasing clock frequency, and decreasing a number of instructions executed per cycle ([0038]).
26. Regarding claim 14, Keskin discloses method comprising:
Measuring, by each of a plurality of thermal sensing elements, a temperature of a semiconductor chip ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C); and
determining a temperature at a target location on the semiconductor chip using two or more temperature measurements from the plurality of thermal sensing element ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C: temperature manager may estimate the temperature at location 710 based on the average of the temperature readings from the temperature sensors).
Keskin does not disclose:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state.
However, Jung discloses:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state ([0019], [0021]: Early hot spot prediction can be based on a previous power state of the semiconductor device, on monitoring a temperature associated with the semiconductor device, and/or on a measure of utilization of the processor of the semiconductor device. …[0022]-[0023]: A higher temperature can be predicted as the moving average of utilization increases…the moving average can be determined based on data captured when monitoring the variation of a supply voltage of the processor and/or an operating frequency of the processor, and/or like parameters of the processor….the temperature of a processor or a component can also be measured in real-time and used to predict the future temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Keskin to use determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to controlling temperature of semiconductor devices dynamically (Jung, [0003]).
27. Regarding claim 16, Keskin in view of Jung disclose the method of claim 14, as disclosed above.
Keskin further discloses wherein the target location comprises a hotspot overlying a processing unit ([0032], [0070]: The region 110 may include one or more blocks of circuitry (e.g., processors)).
28. Regarding claim 20, Keskin discloses system comprising:
a semiconductor chip having a target location ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C); and
a plurality of thermal sensing elements located on the semiconductor chip proximate to the target location ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C); and
wherein the system is configured to determine a temperature at the target location using temperature measured at each of the locations of the plurality of thermal sensing element ([0065], Figs. 7A-7C: temperature manager may estimate the temperature at location 710 based on the average of the temperature readings from the temperature sensors), wherein the target location comprises a hotspot ([0065], [0070]: temperature manager may estimate the temperature at location 710 based on the average of the temperature readings from the temperature sensors… two or more temperature sensors may be placed on the chip based on an estimated hotspot location on the chip).
Keskin does not disclose:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state.
However, Jung discloses:
determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state ([0019], [0021]: Early hot spot prediction can be based on a previous power state of the semiconductor device, on monitoring a temperature associated with the semiconductor device, and/or on a measure of utilization of the processor of the semiconductor device. …[0022]-[0023]: A higher temperature can be predicted as the moving average of utilization increases…the moving average can be determined based on data captured when monitoring the variation of a supply voltage of the processor and/or an operating frequency of the processor, and/or like parameters of the processor….the temperature of a processor or a component can also be measured in real-time and used to predict the future temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Keskin to use determining a temperature at a location using operational information for the semiconductor chip, wherein the operational information comprises at least one of a performance counter, an activity counter, or a dynamic processor state as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to controlling temperature of semiconductor devices dynamically (Jung, [0003]).
Conclusion
29. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
30. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
