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 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, -16, 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/30/2026, with respect to claims 1, 13, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 103 of claims 1, 13, and 15 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 101.
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 1-3, 5-16, and 18-21 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, by processing circuit, predetermined signal processing;
operating a thermometer in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold, such that while the thermometer is operating in the measurement state,
generating, by the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry; and
wherein a resin mold cover the thermometer and the processing circuitry that are adjacent to each other in the electronic circuit device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“operating a thermometer in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold, such that while the thermometer is operating in the measurement state” is directed to math because this process involves several mathematical and logical concepts: Binary Thresholding and Logic (the operation uses a binary decision to determine the operating mode. If the temperature is < or = thresholds, it is in state A; if the temperature is > thresholds, it is in state B, which is a fundamental Boolean logic operation.), Set Point and inequalities (The predetermined temperature threshold is a numerical boundary defined by an inequality, determining when the thermometer switches function), Linearity and calibration (Digital thermometers uses mathematical equations to linearize input data, converting analog voltage into a digital number).
“generating, by the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry” is directed to math because the process directly relates to mathematics, specifically through physical modeling, analog-to-digital conversion, and calibration calculations. The oscillation frequency of the thermometer is typically designed to be a function of temperature, often linear or proportional-to-absolute-temperature (PTAP) within the operating range. This relationship is defined by a mathematical formula: f(T)=k.T+ C (k and C are constants).
The claim recites the step of "operating a thermometer in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold, such that while the thermometer is operating in the measurement state, generating, by the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry” 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 by processing circuitry, 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)).
“operating a thermometer in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold, such that while the thermometer is operating in the measurement state” 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, by the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry” 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)).
“wherein a resin mold cover the thermometer and the processing circuitry that are adjacent to each other in the electronic circuit device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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.
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 by processing circuitry, 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 2106.05(h)).
“operating a thermometer in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold, such that while the thermometer is operating in the measurement state” 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)).
“generating, by the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry” 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)).
“wherein a resin mold cover the thermometer and the processing circuitry that are adjacent to each other in the electronic circuit device” 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.
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, “a substrate on which the processing circuitry and the thermometer are formed” 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, “a main power supply configured to supply power to the processing circuitry; and a temperature measurement power supply that is independent of the main power supply and configured to supply power to the thermometer” 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 oscillation 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 operate 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 to the processing circuitry the real-time clock signal corresponding to the oscillation signal while the electronic circuit device is operating in a normal temperature range; and to output to the processing circuitry the oscillation 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 oscillation frequency of the oscillation 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 oscillation 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, “a main power supply configured to supply power to the processing circuitry; and a temperature measurement power supply that is independent of the main power supply and configured to supply power to the thermometer” 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 oscillation 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 oscillation 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 oscillation 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 21, “wherein a thermal resistance between the thermometer and the processing circuitry is a predetermined thermal resistance value or less, such that the thermometer has substantially the same temperature as 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)).
Hence the claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-21 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 13, and 15 recite hardware, that is, a thermometer, that performs a specific operation during a specific operating condition. The thermometer is configured to operate in a normal state at or below a predetermined temperature threshold and a measurement state above the predetermined temperature threshold. While operating in the measurement state, the thermometer generates an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode during which the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage that is less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry. Applicant argues that a thermometer, which is a physical device that performs the recited operations, cannot reasonably be construed as corresponding to a mental process. In addition, independent claim 1 is amended to recite a resin mold that covers the thermometer and the processing circuitry that are adjacent to each other in the electronic circuit device, which further emphasizes that these are physical hardware components that perform the recited operations, and not merely a "mental process."
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites an electronic circuit device, comprising: processing circuitry configured and a thermometer configured to perform the steps and a resin mold that covers the thermometer and the processing circuitry that are adjacent to each other in the electronic circuit device. 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. The claim does not provide any details about how improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. The plain meaning of “operating” and “generating” encompasses logical functions, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental operating a thermometer and generating, by use the thermometer, an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in corresponding to a temperature of the processing circuitry in a mode.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 101 with the same reason.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “a thermometer configured to generate an oscillation signal having an oscillation frequency in correspondence with a temperature of the processing circuitry, the thermometer is driven at a predetermined power supply voltage less than a power supply voltage of the processing circuitry, a thermometer and processing circuitry are adjacent to each other and are covered in a resin mold” as cited in claim 1.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 15 under 103 have 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