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
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 7-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-27 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-27 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.
Claim 21 is a single claim, which claim both apparatus/device and the method.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite trader 35 U.S.C.112, second paragraph. In Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990), a claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand anti the method steps of using it was held to be ambiguous and properly rejected trader 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Such claims should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the theory that the claim is directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine," but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth under 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Id. at 1551.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. ** > See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); < Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Claims 22-27 are rejected because they depend directly from claims 21.
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 1-6 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to a method, claim 14-20 are directed to using a power system to perform the method, and claims 21-27 are directed to using an embedded power system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method of characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising:
sampling, by a microcontroller of a power electronics system comprising the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device; and
characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“sampling, by a microcontroller of the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device” is directed to math because the raw ADC output is mathematically multiplied by a scalar values to convert it into actual engineering units, like Volts and Amps. At power-on, the microcontroller uses math to transform raw, noisy, or high voltage signal into accurate data for monitoring, protection, and control during startup sequence.
“characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values” is directed to math because characterizing threshold voltage involves finding a critical parameter (voltage) from I-V (current-voltage). This is typical formulated as finding the point where the derivative of the current with respect to voltage, dI/dV, meet a specific threshold, or mapping input data (V,I) to a Vth output via a function. The microcontroller executed a trained model, which is a mathematical function f(x,θ)(e.g. .., a neural network) that maps inputs (voltage/current measurements) to an output (threshold voltage). To train the AI model, a loss function is minimized. A joint loss function combines multiple criteria. Jacobian regularization term is an explicit mathematical constraint applied during training to improve robustness. It penalizes the norm of the Jacobian matrix, which represents the matrix of partial derivatives of the model outputs with respect to input. Compensating for noise is mathematically, Jacobian regularization restricts the Lipschitz constant of the function, ensuring that small perturbations (noise) in input measurement (V,I) do not cause large fluctuation in the predicted Vth.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “sampling, by a microcontroller of the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device; and characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method of characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“sampling, by a microcontroller of the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and outputting or displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. *** using an artificial intelligence (AI) model ***, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the *** artificial intelligence (AI) model *** merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of *** artificial intelligence (AI) model *** to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“A method of characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“sampling, by a microcontroller of the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 1 but recites a power electronics system comprising: a power electronic device; an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device; and a microcontroller comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the power electronics system to perform a method of characterizing a parameter of the power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 14 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 14.
Claim 21 is similar to claim 1 but recites an embedded power electronics system comprising: a power transistor; an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power transistor; and a microcontroller comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model and a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the embedded power electronics system to perform a method of characterizing threshold voltage drift of the power transistor as a predictive marker of device degradation using the trained AI model. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 21 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 21.
Regarding claims 2 and 26, “wherein the power electronic device is a power transistor comprising a gate, a source, and a drain, and the measured voltage and current values comprise the drain-source voltage and the drain current of the power transistor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the inputs comprise the gate-source voltage of the power transistor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein characterizing the threshold voltage of the power electronic device further comprises outputting an estimated threshold voltage within about 100 ms of powering on the power electronic device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “characterizing drift of the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “rehabilitating the device degradation using new parameter values selected according to the characterization, the new parameter values comprising one or more of driving voltage, gate voltage, or source voltage” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 15, “an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device, the ADC circuit being configured to receive analog voltage and current signals from the power electronic device, convert the analog voltage and current signals to voltage and current values, and output the voltage and current values to the processor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 16 and 23, “wherein the microcontroller comprises the ADC circuit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 17 and 25, “a conditioning circuit coupled between the power electronic device and the ADC circuit, the conditioning circuit being configured to condition raw analog voltage and current signals to generate the analog voltage and current signals received by the ADC circuit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 18, “wherein the conditioning circuit comprises a plurality of operational amplifiers comprising inputs coupled to respective ones of the raw analog voltage and current signals, and outputs coupled to the ADC circuit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 19, “wherein the power electronic device is a power transistor comprising a gate, a source, and a drain, the parameter of the power electronic device is the threshold voltage of the power transistor, and the measured voltage and current values comprise the drain-source voltage and the drain current of the power transistor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h))..
Regarding claim 20, “wherein the power electronic device is a power silicon (Si) device or a power silicon carbide (SiC) device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 24, “wherein the ADC circuit is configured to receive analog voltage and current signals from the power transistor, convert the analog voltage and current signals to voltage and current values, and output the voltage and current values to the processor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 27, “wherein the inputs to the trained AI model comprise the gate-source voltage of the power transistor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-6 and 14-27 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that that the claims integrate any existing judicial exception into the practical application of real-time health monitoring of a physical power electronic device by characterizing threshold voltage as a predictive marker of device degradation using a noise-robust Al model and are therefore eligible subject matter. Using an AI model trained with a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term that specifically compensates for the noise present in the measured voltage and current values, enabling accurate threshold voltage characterization at power-on for the purpose of predicting device degradation. The Jacobian regularization term penalizes the norm of the Jacobian matrix during training, causing the AI model to learn to disregard oscillations corresponding to noise while preserving the signal information necessary for accurate characterization. This is a specific training methodology designed to solve a specific measurement problem in power electronics systems.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a method of characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the method comprising: sampling, by a microcontroller of a power electronics system comprising the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device; and characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values. The claimed sampling, characterizing using a microcontroller of a power electronics system encompasses performing mathematical calculations. Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim does not provide any details about how the trained machine model operates or how the characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device is made, and the plain meaning of “characterizing” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device.
Examiner notes that the claims are directed to characterizing threshold voltage of a power electronic device using an artificial intelligence (AI) model. It is noted that the claims do not describe enabling accurate threshold voltage characterization at power-on. The claims do not describe the Jacobian regularization term penalizes the norm of the Jacobian matrix during training, causing the AI model to learn to disregard oscillations corresponding to noise while preserving the signal information necessary for accurate characterization. It is noted that the “threshold voltage” is based on the measured voltage and current values. It is noted that the claims do not identify additional criterion for characterizing “best threshold voltage”. As identified in the 35 USC 101 rejection below, steps sampling and characterizing are directed to gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process. The training in step characterizing directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. The measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on in step sampling is directed to a mental process of calculation of the voltage and the current of the power electronic device which is an additional element that is directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), Performing repetitive calculations).
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “sampling, by a microcontroller of a power electronics system comprising the power electronic device, measured voltage and current values of the power electronic device at power-on, the measured voltage and current values being received from an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuit coupled to the power electronic device; and characterizing, by the microcontroller, the threshold voltage of the power electronic device as a predictive marker of device degradation using the AI model in inference mode with the measured voltage and current values as inputs, the AI model being trained using a joint loss function comprising a Jacobian regularization term to compensate for noise present in the measured voltage and current values” as cited in claims 1, 14, and 21.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection under 103 of claims 1-4 and 14-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights