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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/1016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s first argument is as follows:
“Firstly, in the first paragraph on page 4 of the Office Action, it is indicated that the "reference voltage source 801" in FIG. 5 and [col. 5, lines 18-45] of Igarashi is interpreted as the claimed "constant voltage source"…Igarashi teaches that "a voltage value of the reference voltage source 801 is made equal to an output voltage value at a set temperature". This means that the reference voltage source 801 provides a fixed threshold voltage (i.e., fixed reference point) that does not change with temperature. Igarashi neither teaches nor suggests that the output voltage of the reference voltage source 801 dynamically changes with temperature or has the same temperature characteristics as the sensor (i.e., the PN junction element).”
A “reference voltage source” does not require a fixed voltage across a range of temperatures, only that a process is performed based upon the voltage level of said reference voltage. It is well-known in the art for variable voltage signals to be used as reference voltages (e.g., voltage ramps).
Furthermore, Igarashi teaches that “a voltage value of the reference voltage source 801 is made equal to an output voltage value at a set temperature” (col. 5, lines 31-45). Thus, Igarashi’s reference voltage source 801 only provides a fixed voltage at a specific temperature. This is different than, e.g., a bandgap reference circuit which generates a fixed voltage across a wide range of temperatures.
Applicant’s second argument is as follows:
“Furthermore, Igarashi's comparison circuit 701 (alleged as the claimed "amplifier") compares the sensor's output voltage with the fixed voltage value of the reference voltage source 801 to determine if the temperature is equal to, higher than, or lower than the set temperature. If the reference voltage source 801 had the "same temperature properties" as the sensor (i.e., both voltages rising and falling synchronously with temperature changes), both voltages would track each other synchronously. In such a case, the comparison circuit 701 could not detect a crossover point, and Igarashi's intended temperature detection function would be rendered inoperable.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Igarashi is not relied upon to teach the details of reference voltage source 801. In the 7/22/2026 Non-Final Rejection (¶30-36), Schnaitter’s reference voltage source (306, 335, 320) is used to implement Igarashi’s reference voltage source 801. Looking at Schnaitter’s Figure 3B, it is understood by its structure that the voltage across diode 320 inherently varies based on temperature. This is further evidenced in Schnaitter’s “Background Art” which discusses the “fundamental relationship between the saturation current of a p-n junction and its temperature”.
Also, Schnaitter further teaches:
“In conventional temperature measurements made using a single diode, there are a number of error sources that reduce the accuracy and reliability of the measurements…In the measurement of the two voltages, the error associated with each individual measurement contributes to the total error for the term (V2−V1) [which is] normally quite small (about one tenth of V2 or V1)” col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 4.
“…a first diode is coupled to a first current source by a resistor with a known voltage drop, and a second diode is coupled to an adjustable second current source. The current in the second diode is adjusted until the voltage across the second diode is equal to the sum of voltage drop across the first diode and the known voltage drop across the resistor. Under the established conditions, the Diode Equation may be used to calculate a temperature”, col. 2, lines 33-40.
Hence, by implementing Igarashi’s reference voltage source using the teachings of Schnaitter, the resultant combination provides increased accuracy than a single diode implementation.
Applicant’s third argument is as follows:
“Furthermore, as illustrated in FIG. 3B of Schnaitter, the current source 306 supplies current to the series circuit of the resistor 335 and the diode 320. Specifically, the current source 306 supplies current directly to the resistor 335, not directly to the diode 320. Therefore, Schnaitter does not disclose the feature "a constant current source configured to supply a forward current to the second PN junction element" of claim 1.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., direct connection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Figure 5, hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Igarashi (US 7,997,794) and Schnaitter (US 7,108,420).
For claim 1, AAPA teaches a temperature sensor (Figure 5), comprising:
a PN junction element (51), configured to be a temperature sensing element ([3]-[5]);
a variable current source (I1, the switch directly below I1, I2, the switch directly below I2), configured to supply at least two different forward currents to the PN junction element (as understood by examination of Figure 5 and [3]-[5]);
outputting a constant voltage (ground), wherein the constant voltage is lower than the forward voltage of the PN junction element (as understood by examination of Figure 5); and
an amplifier (52), configured to amplify a difference between the forward voltage of the PN junction element and the constant voltage (as understood by examination of Figure 5).
It is noted that the signal supplied to the non-inverting input of AAPA’s 52 has a predetermined temperature characteristic ([5]).
AAPA fails to teach:
a constant voltage source, configured to output a constant voltage having the same temperature properties as a forward voltage of the PN junction element, wherein the constant voltage is lower than the forward voltage of the PN junction element; and
wherein the constant voltage source has one end connected to an inverting input port of the amplifier and another end connected to a ground terminal.
However, Igarashi teaches a temperature circuit (Figure 5) wherein “the comparison circuit 701 generates an electrical signal based on a relationship between the output voltage of the temperature sensor circuit according to the first embodiment and a voltage of the reference voltage source 801. A temperature characteristic of the output voltage of the temperature sensor circuit according to the first embodiment is determined in advance and a voltage value of the reference voltage source 801 is made equal to an output voltage value at a set temperature. The comparison circuit 701 compares an output voltage value with the voltage value of the reference voltage source 801 and generates a high-precision electrical signal indicating that a temperature based on the output voltage value is equal to or higher than the set temperature or that the temperature is lower than the set temperature” (col. 5, lines 18-45).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change AAPA’s grounded connection of the inverting terminal of 52 with a voltage source in order to “a high-precision electrical signal indicating that a temperature based on the output voltage value is equal to or higher than the set temperature or that the temperature is lower than the set temperature”, as taught by Igarashi.
The combination of AAPA and Igarashi as cited above teaches:
a constant voltage source (801, Figure 5 of Igarashi), configured to output a constant voltage (as cited above) having the same temperature properties as a forward voltage of the PN junction element (at a set temperature, as cited above), and
wherein the constant voltage source has one end connected to an inverting input port of the amplifier and another end connected to a ground terminal (as understood by examination of Igarashi’s Figure 5).
The combination of AAPA and Igarashi fails to teach:
wherein the constant voltage is lower than the forward voltage of the PN junction element.
Igarashi is silent as to the value of the constant voltage source 801. However, as stated above, Igarashi requires the following functionality to be performed:
a temperature characteristic of the temperature sensor circuit is determined in advance; and
constant voltage source 801 determines whether a temperature is lower or higher than a set temperature.
It can be understood that both of these required functions are a direct result of the values selected to implement the components used in the combination of AAPA and Igarashi. Since the component values can be set to any values desired within a working range of values, creating the claimed relationship between the constant voltage and the forward voltage would only involve routine "design optimization", which has been held to be within the ordinary capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant should note In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955) where it was held that optimizing particular values is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (who would easily be able to set different values within the range of possible values in order to arrive at the best value by simple experimentation).
Furthermore, note MPEP 2144.05-II-A and 2144.05-III-A which state:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…+
… In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) (“Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”)
The combination of AAPA and Igarashi as cited above fails to teach the details of the constant voltage source as claimed.
However, Schnaitter teaches a temperature detection circuit (Figure 3B) comprising a constant voltage source (306, 335 and 320) generating a constant voltage (VA) wherein temperature is detected by amplifying the difference between a voltage corresponding to a programmable current (V2) and the constant voltage corresponding to a fixed current (VA, col. 4, lines 1-28), said detection corresponding to a set point where VA=V2 (col. 4, lines 1-28).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Igarashi’s constant voltage source 801 using Schnaitter’s 306, 335 and 320 as it relates to a specific-for-broad substitution, i.e., the use of a particular known technique (providing a temperature dependent constant voltage) was part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Schnaitter.
Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
The combination of AAPA, Igarashi and Schnaitter as cited above teaches:
the constant voltage source comprises
a second PN junction element (320, 335) having the same temperature properties as the PN junction element (as explained above with regard to Schnaitter), and
a constant current source (306) configured to supply a forward current to the second PN junction element, wherein a forward voltage of the second PN junction element is the constant voltage (as understood by Schnaitter’s Figure 3B).
For claim 3, the combination of AAPA, Igarashi and Schnaitter as cited above teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
the constant voltage source comprises a reference voltage source (306, 320) configured to supply a reference voltage having the same temperature properties as the forward voltage of the PN junction element (as taught by Schnaitter, see Response to Arguments above), and a voltage conversion circuit (335) configured to convert the reference voltage supplied into the constant voltage and outputting the constant voltage (as understood by examination of Schnaitter’s Figure 3B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miller et al (US 3,812,717) teaches temperature measurement using two current sources, a comparator and a diode (Figure 3).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CALRISSIAN PUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-5070. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 (flex).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights