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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-12 and 16-20 are directed to an electronic circuit device, claims 13-14 are directed to a method for measuring temperature of an electronic circuit device, and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform a 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 13:
A method for measuring temperature of an electronic circuit device, comprising:
executing predetermined signal processing;
generating an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry under a mode:
when the thermometer is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less; and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“generating an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry under a mode” is directed to math because generating an oscillation signal with a frequency that directly corresponds to the temperature of processing circuitry is a fascinating example of applied physics and electrical engineering, but at its fundamental core, it absolutely relates to math—specifically, applied mathematics, mathematical modeling, and algorithm design. The very principles that govern how temperature changes affect electronic components, and how we measure those changes, are deeply rooted in mathematical concepts.
“when the thermometer is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less; and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less” is directed to math because generating an oscillation signal in a thermometer assembly under specific, tightly controlled conditions, such as driving the system at a predetermined low power consumption value or less, and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and its associated processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less, most assuredly relates to mathematics—in fact, it is fundamentally steeped in mathematical principles. The entire concept, from the physical dynamics of the thermal system to the electronic signal generation and processing, relies heavily on mathematical modeling, equations, and analysis.
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 “sensor, body part, and 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 "generating an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry under a mode:
when the thermometer is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less; and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less” 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 for measuring temperature of an electronic circuit device” 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)).
“executing predetermined signal processing” 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)).
“generating an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry under a mode:
when the thermometer is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less; and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less” 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 selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying or outputting 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.
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 for measuring temperature of an electronic circuit device” 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)).
“executing predetermined signal processing” 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 2106.0“generating an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry under a mode: when the thermometer is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less; and when a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less” 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 1 is similar to claim 13 but recites an electronic circuit device, comprising: processing circuitry configured and a thermometer configured to perform the steps as in claim 13. 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 1 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 1.
Claim 15 cites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform a method. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 15 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the processing circuitry and the thermometer are formed on the same substrate” 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 a sub power supplier configured to feed power to the thermometer is independent of the main power supplier configured to feed power to the processing circuitry” 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 the main power supplier and the thermometer are fed by different power suppliers respectively” 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, “wherein the thermometer comprises an oscillator configured to generate the signal” 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, “wherein the oscillator is an RC oscillator” 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 7, “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to be in at least two states where a power supply is cut off or where an input clock is stopped” 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 8, “wherein the thermometer is further configured to output a real-time clock signal to the processing circuitry” 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 9, “wherein the thermometer is further configured: to output the real-time clock signal corresponding to the signal in a normal temperature range; and to output the signal in a temperature measurement temperature range higher than the normal temperature range” 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 10, “wherein the thermometer is further configured: to generate a temperature measurement signal corresponding to the frequency of the signal; and to output the temperature measurement signal to the processing circuitry” 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 11, “wherein the thermometer is further configured: to input a measurement reference signal having a smaller temperature frequency dependence than the temperature measurement signal; and to generate the temperature measurement signal from the signal using the measurement reference signal” 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 12, “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform positioning calculation based on a received positioning signal“ 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 14, “driving the thermometer at a predetermined low power consumption value or less at a time for a calibration of temperature and frequency” 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 16, “wherein a sub power supplier configured to feed power to the thermometer is independent of the main power supplier configured to feed power to the processing circuitry” 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 17, “wherein the main power supplier and the thermometer are fed by different power suppliers respectively” 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 thermometer comprises an oscillator configured to generate the signal” 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 thermometer comprises an oscillator configured to generate the signal” 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 thermometer comprises an oscillator configured to generate the signal” 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 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsuzaki (US 2018/0076816 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 15, Matsuzaki discloses an electronic circuit device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and method (Abstract; par. [0002]; 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a main processor module (CPU 16, Fig. 1) configured to execute predetermined signal processing (para. [0035]); and
a temperature measurement module (11, Fig. 1) configured to generate an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the main processor module under a mode (par. [0036]):
when the temperature measurement module is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less (temperature measurement module is driven at a given supply power level, which is lower than any power threshold level greater than that supply power level); and
when a thermal resistance between the temperature measurement module and the main processor module is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less (the thermal path between oscillator 11 and CPU 16, shown in Fig. 1, has a thermal resistance value which is lower than any threshold thermal resistance value greater than that thermal resistance value, para. [0062]).
The terms "the temperature measurement module (30, 30B) is driven at a predetermined low power consumption value or less" and "a thermal resistance between the temperature measurement module and the main processor module is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less", used in the claims do not limit the scope of protection sought by means of these claims. The two terms respectively attempt to define a parameter (a supply power level and a thermal resistance value, respectively) with respect to a threshold value ("a predetermined low power consumption value" and "a predetermined thermal resistance value", respectively) which is undefined. Therefore, the two terms do not define an identifiable range of a power supply level or thermal resistance value. This is because, given a value of a parameter, it is always possible to set a threshold value of that parameter which is greater than the given value.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the processing circuitry and the thermometer are formed on the same substrate (Fig.1, para. [0035]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Matsuzaki discloses wherein a sub power supplier (21, Fig.2) configured to feed power to the thermometer is independent of the main power supplier configured to feed power to the processing circuitry (Fig.1 and para. [0044]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the main power supplier and the thermometer are fed by different power suppliers respectively (Figures 1 and 2 clearly point to a power supply for the CPU which is different from current source 21 used to supply power to temperature sensing oscillator 11).
Regarding claims 5 and 18-20, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the thermometer comprises an oscillator (11) configured to generate the signal (Fig.1, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, although Matsuzaki defines oscillator 11 as an RS flip-flop or a voltage controlled oscillator (par. [0046]), it is well known in the art that an RC-oscillator is an obvious alternative to the types of oscillator mentioned in Matsuzaki for module 11. Even in Matsuzaki, a second oscillator (12, Fig. 1) is disclosed which is an RC-oscillator (par. [0037]). It would be obvious for the skilled person to design temperature-sensing oscillator 11 as an RC-oscillator.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuzaki teaches reducing a clock frequency (par. [0058]). It is obvious for the skilled person that the clock frequency can be reduced to zero, thereby stopping the clock input signal to CPU 16.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the thermometer is further configured to output a real-time clock signal to the processing circuitry (para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuzaki discloses operating a temperature sensing module, e.g. temperature-sensing oscillator (11, shown in Fig. 1), wherein the thermometer is further configured: to output the real-time clock signal corresponding to the signal in a normal temperature range (para. [0043]). It is obvious for the skilled person that output the signal in a temperature measurement temperature range higher than the normal temperature range.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the thermometer is further configured: to generate a temperature measurement signal corresponding to the frequency of the signal; and to output the temperature measurement signal to the processing circuitry (para. [0036]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuzaki discloses input a measurement reference signal having a smaller temperature frequency dependence than the temperature measurement signal; and to generate the temperature measurement signal from the signal using the measurement reference signal (Figs. 6A-6C; par. [0038] and [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform positioning calculation based on a received positioning signal (para. [0033]-[0034]: When reference is made to the number of elements or the like (including the number of pieces, numerical values, quantity, range, etc.) in the following embodiments, the number thereof is not limited to a specific number and may be greater than or less than or equal to the specific number unless otherwise particularly specified and definitely limited to the specific number in principle… when reference is made to the shapes, positional relations, or the like of the components or the like in the following embodiments, they will include ones, for example, substantially approximate or similar in their shapes or the like unless otherwise particularly specified and considered not to be definitely so in principle).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuzaki fail to discloses driving the thermometer at a predetermined low power consumption value or less at a time for a calibration of temperature and frequency. However, it is obvious for the skilled person that a power must be supplied to a temperature sensing module during calibration. According to the needs and circumstances, the skilled person knows the appropriate level of supply power. In particular, given the specific application, the skilled person knows that a low level of supply power is preferable to a high level.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sato (USP 11,356,057) disclose a temperature control circuit of a module including a target object and a heat generation circuit stored in a package, the temperature control circuit comprising: a temperature sensor arranged in the package and configured to detect temperature in the package; a driving amount detection circuit configured to detect a driving amount of the heat generation circuit; a target temperature generation circuit configured to generate a target temperature from an intended temperature of the target object and a detection value of the driving amount detected by the driving amount detection circuit; a drive circuit configured to control the driving amount so that the detection temperature detected by the temperature sensor coincides with the target temperature; and a cancellation circuit configured to receive the detection value of the driving amount or a signal based on the target temperature and cancel influence of a second or higher order fluctuation component generated in the driving amount detection circuit on temperature of the target object; applying each of the temperature control circuits to an optional circuit requiring temperature control, such as an oscillation control circuit that controls the oscillation frequency of a resonator.
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 Eastern Time.
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