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 05/29/2026.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13, and 17-18 have been amended.
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 1-10 are directed to a apparatus, claim 11-20 are directed to 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 11:
A method, comprising:
receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC;
estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air;
estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an atual flow rate of the air flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC; and
controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” is directed to math because Taking the measurements involves collecting data, which is a core concept in data science and statistics. This data is often represented mathematically in charts, graphs, or tables. The heat transfer between the IC and the air can be described by mathematical models, often involving differential equations. These equations use mathematical principles to predict how temperature changes over time or under different conditions. Understanding the rate at which the IC heats up or cools down often requires calculus, specifically concepts like derivatives (rates of change) and integration. Mathematical and statistical tools are used to analyze the collected temperature data to identify trends, calculate averages, determine correlations between the two temperatures, and estimate the reliability of the measurements.
“estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” is directed to math using principles from electrical circuits (Ohm's Law analogy:
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
V↔T, 𝐼↔𝑃, 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐↔𝑅𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙) and heat transfer formulas, often involving calculus for complex scenarios but simplified to algebra for basic calculations like RJA=(TJ−TA)/P or
PNG
media_image2.png
56
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, to predict component temperatures.
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 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 "receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC; estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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:
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” 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)).
“estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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)).
“estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC” 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)).
“controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results of analyzing data.
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).
The recited steps alone can be done by a human mind and/or using pen and paper, so they are abstract ideas. Controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate is where a computer is used to compute and control these steps, and the computer recited at generic level to perform these abstract-idea steps does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas. Using a computer to Control a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate is merely applying the abstract data processing to a computer, not an improvement to the computer itself.
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:
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” 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)).
“estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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)).
“estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC” 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)).
“controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 11 but recites an apparatus comprising an interface and one or more processors to perform the steps as in claim 11. 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.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, “wherein a heatsink (HS) is disposed on the IC, and comprising (i) receiving a third temperature of the HS, (ii) holding or receiving a parameter indicative of a first thermal resistance between the IC and the HS, and (iii) estimating a second thermal resistance, between the HS and the air, based on: (a) the first thermal resistance, and (b) the first, second and third temperatures” 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 and 13, “wherein estimating the actual flow rate of the air is based on the estimated second thermal resistance between the HS and the air” 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 and 14, “wherein the IC is mounted on a substrate, wherein the thermal resistance between the IC and the air is equivalent to a sum of (1) the first and second thermal resistances, and (2) a third thermal resistance between the IC and the substrate, and comprising: (i) receiving a fourth temperature of the substrate, (ii) holding or receiving an additional parameter indicative of the third thermal resistance, and (iii) estimating the second thermal resistance between the HS and the air, based on: (a) the first and third thermal resistances, and (b) the first, second and fourth temperatures” 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 and 15, “pre-characterizing the parameter and the additional parameter based on: (i) properties of materials of the HS and the substrate, and (ii) a structure comprising at least the substrate, the IC, and the HS” 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 and 16, “wherein at least one of the first temperature, the second temperature, and the third temperature is obtained in a steady state condition” 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 and 17, “wherein estimating the flow rate of the air is based on a pre-characterized dependency between the second thermal resistance and the flow rate of the air” 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 and 18, “wherein controlling the cooling device comprises matching the estimated actual flow rate to a desired flow rate of the air flowing through the case” 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 and 19, “a first temperature sensor for measuring the first temperature, and one or more second temperature sensors disposed within the case for measuring the second temperature, wherein the case has first and second openings for flowing the air into the case through the first opening and drawing the air out of the case through the second opening, and wherein the one or more second temperature sensors comprise: (i) a first ambient temperature sensor for generating a first ambient temperature measurement of the air flowing into the case, and (ii) a second ambient temperature sensor for generating a second ambient temperature measurement of the air flowing out of the case” 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 and 20, “wherein estimating the second temperature is based on the first and second ambient temperature measurements” is directed to math through several foundational concepts and models. The primary mathematical relationship used for such estimations is Newton's Law of Cooling. It describes how the temperature of an object changes over time in relation to the surrounding ambient temperature.
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ioannnidis (US 2012/0221287 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ioannnidis discloses an apparatus, comprising:
an interface, to receive measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC; ([0171]: “a system controller for a double H-bridge that controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling. The double H-bridge controller, as referred to as the auxiliary logic controller (ALC), may calculate, in real time, the junction temperatures of the IGBTs it controls and determine a required level of cooling”, [0172]: “the double H-bridge controller sends signals TBjc, dTCjc, PB, and PC to the system controller, where dTBjc=temperature difference of case B to air and dTCjc=temperature difference of case C to air.”)
and a processer, to: ([0171]: “controller”)
estimate a thermal resistance between the IC and the air; and ([0173]: “The system controller, based on the signals received by the ALC, estimates the required effective thermal resistances between the heatsink underneath each phase and the cooling air, RB* and RC*.” [0174] showing equation to calculate resistance from temperature values)
estimate, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC. ([0178]: “Regression equations describing the desired air flow rate as a function of RB* and RC* may be developed by applying regression techniques to the USL values for RC* and RB*”, [0179]: “the system controller may be configured to apply the regression equations shown above to control the airflow applied to the double H-bridges under its control.”, [0171]: “controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling.”, para. [0188]-[0189], Figs.21-22, table 86: FIG. 22 is a block diagram of a system controller for a double H-bridge that controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling. As shown in FIG. 22, the double H-bridge sends a single desired level of cooling (dTjc) and a single power (P). The double H-bridge includes logic for determining whether the values of dTjc and P will be based on phase B or phase C. For example, if PB is greater than PC, then dTjc and P are based on phase B. Otherwise, dTjc and P are based on phase C. Because the system controller receives on two signals from the double H-bridge controller, the system controller circuitry may be simplified as shown in FIG. 22); and
controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate (para. [0048]: the temperature of the air flowing through the heatsink can be controlled at a pre-selected level, para. [0171]: The double H-bridge controller may determine a required level of cooling that will reduce thermal cycling and, thus, reduces thermal fatigue in the IGBT modules. The desired level of cooling may be passed from the individual double H-bridge controller (ALC) to the system controller which selects the greater required cooling level of all individual converters in the system, and uses this cooling level as the base to provide a command to the controller of the equipment blower that provides the air flow, para. [0188]-[0189], Figs.21-22, table 86: FIG. 22 is a block diagram of a system controller for a double H-bridge that controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling. As shown in FIG. 22, the double H-bridge sends a single desired level of cooling (dTjc) and a single power (P). The double H-bridge includes logic for determining whether the values of dTjc and P will be based on phase B or phase C. For example, if PB is greater than PC, then dTjc and P are based on phase B. Otherwise, dTjc and P are based on phase C. Because the system controller receives on two signals from the double H-bridge controller, the system controller circuitry may be simplified as shown in FIG. 22).
Ioannnidis also discloses one or more processors (para. [0172]: As shown in FIG. 21, the double H-bridge controller sends signals TBjc, dTCjc, PB, and PC to the system controller)
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Ioannnidis discloses wherein a heatsink (HS) is disposed on the IC (see Fig.3), wherein the interface is to receive a third temperature of the HS (para. [0074]), and wherein the processor is to: (i) hold or receive a parameter indicative of a first thermal resistance between the IC and the HS, and (ii) estimate a second thermal resistance, between the HS and the air, based on: (a) the first thermal resistance, and (b) the first, second and third temperatures (para. [0034], [0036], [0173]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ioannnidis discloses wherein the processor is to estimate the flow rate of the air based on the estimated second thermal resistance between the HS and the air ([0178]-[0179]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ioannnidis discloses wherein the IC is mounted on a substrate, wherein the thermal resistance between the IC and the air is a combination of (1) the first and second thermal resistances, and (2) a third thermal resistance between the IC and the substrate, wherein the interface is to receive a fourth temperature of the substrate, and wherein the processor (controller) is to: (i) hold or receive an additional parameter indicative of the third thermal resistance, and (ii) estimate the second thermal resistance between the HS and the air, based on: (a) the first and third thermal resistances, and (b) the first, second and fourth temperatures (Fig.3, [0036], [0122], [0163], [0173]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ioannnidis discloses wherein the parameter and the additional parameter are pre-characterized based on: (i) properties of materials of the HS and the substrate, and (ii) a structure comprising at least the substrate, the IC, and the HS ([0153], [0166], [0170]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ioannnidis discloses wherein at least one of the first temperature, the second temperature, and the third temperature is obtained in a steady state condition ([0037],[0048],[0050],[0052]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ioannnidis discloses wherein the processor is to estimate the flow rate of the air based on a pre-characterized dependency between the second thermal resistance and the flow rate of the air ([0171]-[0173]). sensor
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ioannnidis discloses a cooling device to flow the air, and wherein, based on the estimated flow rate, the processor is to control the cooling device to match the estimated flow rate to a desired flow rate of the air flowing through the case ([0171]-[0173]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ioannnidis discloses a first temperature sensor to measure the first temperature, and one or more second temperature sensors disposed within the case to measure the second temperature, wherein the case has first and second openings for flowing the air into the case through the first opening and drawing the air out of the case through the second opening, and wherein the one or more second temperature sensors comprise: (i) a first ambient temperature sensor to generate a first ambient temperature measurement of the air flowing into the case, and (ii) a second ambient temperature sensor to generate a second ambient temperature measurement of the air flowing out of the case ([0122], [0128]-[0130], [0171]-[0173]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Ioannnidis discloses estimate the second temperature based on the first and second ambient temperature measurements ([0063], [0122], claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the present claims are directed to estimating actual airflow based on temperature sensing and using estimate to control cooling. This is a concrete improvement to thermal management technology. (Appellant argument, page 2).
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites an apparatus and method, comprising:
receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC;
estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air;
estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC; and
controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate.
As identified in the 35 USC 101 rejection below, step of “receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” is directed to mental step of data gathering, step of “receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” is directed to math because Taking the measurements involves collecting data, which is a core concept in data science and statistics. This data is often represented mathematically in charts, graphs, or tables. The heat transfer between the IC and the air can be described by mathematical models, often involving differential equations. These equations use mathematical principles to predict how temperature changes over time or under different conditions. Understanding the rate at which the IC heats up or cools down often requires calculus, specifically concepts like derivatives (rates of change) and integration. Mathematical and statistical tools are used to analyze the collected temperature data to identify trends, calculate averages, determine correlations between the two temperatures, and estimate the reliability of the measurements, step of “estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” is directed to math using principles from electrical circuits (Ohm's Law analogy:
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
V↔T, 𝐼↔𝑃, 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐↔𝑅𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙) and heat transfer formulas, often involving calculus for complex scenarios but simplified to algebra for basic calculations like RJA=(TJ−TA)/P, to predict component temperatures.
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 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 "receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC; estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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:
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” 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)).
“estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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)).
“estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC” 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)).
“controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results of analyzing data.
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).
The recited steps alone can be done by a human mind and/or using pen and paper, so they are abstract ideas. Controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate is where a computer is used to compute and control these steps, and the computer recited at generic level to perform these abstract-idea steps does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas. Using a computer to Control a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate is merely applying the abstract data processing to a computer, not an improvement to the computer itself.
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:
“receiving measurements of a first temperature of an integrated circuit (IC), and a second temperature of air in a case that surrounds the IC” 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)).
“estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” 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)).
“estimating, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC” 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)).
“controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
It is unclear how “controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate” results in improvement of the function of a computer or improvement another technology or technical filed. According to [0027] of applicant’s specification, in principle, it is possible to measure the flow rate of the air, for example, using any suitable type of one or more air flow sensors mounted on the CB. However, such air flow sensors increase the cost of the system and occupy valuable real estate of the CB, which cannot be used for operating the components of the system. Thus, a solution for estimating the flow rate without air flow sensors is required. Therefore, the discussed improvement (i.e. controlling a cooling device to cause airflow based on the estimated actual flow rate) is related to an abstract idea itself, which is “estimating a thermal resistance between the IC and the air” is directed to math using principles from electrical circuits and heat transfer formulas, often involving calculus for complex scenarios but simplified to algebra for basic calculations like RJA=(TJ−TA)/P or
PNG
media_image2.png
56
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. As discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology and does not improve computer functionality.
Therefore, the discussed improvement is related to an abstract idea itself, which is identifying a ordering of variable for a mathematical formula. As discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology and does not improve computer functionality.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Appellant argues that the prior art Ioannnidis (US 2012/0221287 A1) does not teach, “the one or more processors estimate an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case” as cited in claims 1 and 11.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ioannnidis discloses one or more processors (para. [0172]: As shown in FIG. 21, the double H-bridge controller sends signals TBjc, dTCjc, PB, and PC to the system controller).
Ioannnidis teach estimate, based on (i) the thermal resistance between the IC and the air, and (ii) the first and second temperatures, an actual flow rate of the air flowing through the case for dissipating heat generated by the IC. ([0178]: “Regression equations describing the desired air flow rate as a function of RB* and RC* may be developed by applying regression techniques to the USL values for RC* and RB*”, [0179]: “the system controller may be configured to apply the regression equations shown above to control the airflow applied to the double H-bridges under its control.”, [0171]: “FIG. 21 is a block diagram of a system controller for a double H-bridge that controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling. The double H-bridge controller, as referred to as the auxiliary logic controller (ALC), may calculate, in real time, the junction temperatures of the IGBTs it controls and determine a required level of cooling”, para. [0188]-[0189], Figs.21-22, table 86: FIG. 22 is a block diagram of a system controller for a double H-bridge that controls the airflow rate based on an estimated amount of desired cooling. As shown in FIG. 22, the double H-bridge sends a single desired level of cooling (dTjc) and a single power (P). The double H-bridge includes logic for determining whether the values of dTjc and P will be based on phase B or phase C. For example, if PB is greater than PC, then dTjc and P are based on phase B. Otherwise, dTjc and P are based on phase C. Because the system controller receives on two signals from the double H-bridge controller, the system controller circuitry may be simplified as shown in FIG. 22). It inherently teach the one or more processors estimate an actual flow rate of the air that is flowing through the case.
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