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, see the remarks on 2/19/26, with respect to rejection have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Newly, the 101 rejection has been applied.
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 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, a method comprising: measuring measurable parameters in a switching voltage regulator, applying the measurable parameters to a mathematical model to calculate a switching current associated with a power switch of the switching voltage regulator; and calculating a quiescent current associated with the switching voltage regulator based on the switching current.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Analysis: Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of measuring measurable parameters, applying the measurable parameters to a mathematical model to calculate a switching current, and calculating a quiescent current based on the switching current.
The applying limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic elements. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the applying step from practically being performed in the human mind or as pure mathematical calculation. For example, but for any generic measurement language, the claim encompasses a person (or computer) taking values and plugging them into a mathematical formula/equation to compute switching current. This limitation is a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The calculating limitation, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept. For example, the claim encompasses using the previously calculated switching current in further mathematical operations or mental arithmetic to arrive at quiescent current. Thus, this limitation is also a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The measuring step, while potentially involving data gathering, does not change the character of the claim, which is directed to the mathematical modeling and calculations.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of measuring parameters in a switching voltage regulator. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide data for the mathematical model/calculations. The switching voltage regulator is a generic environment or field of use. The claim does not recite any specific structure, improvement to the regulator itself, or integration that applies the mathematical concept in a meaningful way beyond the abstract calculations. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) and applying the exception to a generic technological environment (a switching voltage regulator). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., these elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Mere data gathering and application of a mathematical model in a conventional setting cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the mathematical model describes an average switching current associated with the switching voltage regulator.
1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of the method of claim 1 wherein the mathematical model describes an average switching current associated with the switching voltage regulator.
The additional limitation regarding the mathematical model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses defining or using a mathematical formula/equation that models or computes average switching current. This limitation is a mathematical concept and mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites no additional element beyond the abstract idea of claim 1. The further specification of the mathematical model is part of the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim amounts to no more than the abstract idea itself. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., the further specification of the mathematical model cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further including fabricating a circuit comprising the switching voltage regulator based on a circuit design, the fabricated circuit comprising the power switch and conductive inputs/outputs (I/O).
1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of the method of claim 1 further including fabricating a circuit comprising the switching voltage regulator based on a circuit design, the fabricated circuit comprising the power switch and conductive inputs/outputs (I/O).
The fabricating limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the fabricating step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses mentally designing or conceptually fabricating the circuit. This limitation is a mental process. The core calculating steps remain a mathematical concept and mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites one additional element: fabricating a circuit comprising the switching voltage regulator. The fabricated circuit and circuit design are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic technological environment or field of use. This generic limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein the conductive I/O comprises: a first lead adapted to be coupled to an inductor; and a second lead adapted to be coupled to a capacitor; wherein measuring the measurable parameters comprises: measuring a peak switching current based on the electrical signals provided to the first and second leads; measuring a threshold associated with a capacitor voltage at the second lead based on the electrical signals provided to the first and second leads; and measuring internal operational currents of the switching voltage regulator.
1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of the method of claim 3 wherein the conductive I/O comprises a first lead adapted to be coupled to an inductor and a second lead adapted to be coupled to a capacitor, and wherein measuring the measurable parameters comprises measuring a peak switching current, measuring a threshold associated with a capacitor voltage, and measuring internal operational currents.
The additional limitations regarding the conductive I/O and specific measuring steps, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses mentally or conceptually specifying leads and measuring values. These limitations are mental processes. The core applying and calculating steps remain a mathematical concept and mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of specifying conductive I/O leads and particular measuring steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic data-gathering activity in a circuit environment. The inductor, capacitor, and leads are merely generic technological environments. These generic limitations are no more than mere data gathering and instructions to apply the exception using a generic technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere data gathering and instructions to apply the exception using a generic technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere data gathering and application of the exception using a generic technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
(Claims 5-10 follow the identical structure and reasoning as Claims 2-4 above, with each dependent limitation analyzed as either part of the mathematical concept/mental process or as insignificant extra-solution activity/generic field-of-use limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept. The conclusion for each is “The claim is ineligible.”)
As to claim 11: A method comprising: measuring measurable parameters in a boost switching voltage regulator, applying the measurable parameters to a mathematical model to calculate an average switching current in the boost switching voltage regulator; and calculating a quiescent current in the boost switching voltage regulator, the quiescent current based on the average switching current and internal operational currents associated with the mathematical model.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of measuring measurable parameters, applying (them) to a mathematical model to calculate an average switching current, and calculating a quiescent current based on the average switching current and internal operational currents associated with the mathematical model.
The applying limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept but for any generic elements. Nothing in the claim precludes this step from practically being performed as plugging measured values into a mathematical equation/model. For example, the claim encompasses mathematical operations to compute average switching current. This limitation is a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The calculating limitation is similarly a mathematical concept/mental process, as it involves further mathematical operations using the modeled currents and internal operational currents (themselves derived from the model).
The measuring step is data gathering that does not alter the abstract nature of the core calculations.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of measuring parameters in a boost switching voltage regulator. The boost switching voltage regulator is merely a generic field of use or technological environment. There is no specific improvement to the regulator, no particular structure, and no meaningful application of the mathematical model beyond the abstract calculations themselves. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (measuring) and applying the exception in a generic technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B. These limitations do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
As to claims 12-17 follow the identical structure and reasoning as Claim 1 above, with each dependent limitation analyzed as either part of the mathematical concept/mental process or as insignificant extra-solution activity/generic field-of-use limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept. The conclusion for each is “The claim is ineligible.”
As to claim 18: A method comprising: coupling the first and second leads of a fabricated circuit to a circuit test fixture; providing electrical signals to the first and second leads via the circuit test fixture; measuring parameters in the fabricated circuit in response to the electrical signals; applying the measured parameters to a mathematical model to calculate an average switching current in the fabricated circuit; and calculating a quiescent current in the fabricated circuit based on the average switching current and internal operational currents associated with the mathematical model.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of applying the measured parameters to a mathematical model to calculate an average switching current and calculating a quiescent current based on the average switching current and internal operational currents.
The applying limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or as a mathematical concept. Nothing in the claim precludes this from being pure mathematical calculation using input values. This is a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The calculating limitation is likewise a mathematical concept/mental process involving further operations on the modeled values.
The preceding steps (coupling, providing signals, measuring) are data-gathering steps that feed into the abstract mathematical analysis but do not change its character.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of coupling leads to a circuit test fixture, providing electrical signals, and measuring parameters in a fabricated circuit. These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to conventional data-gathering or pre-solution activity in a testing environment. The fabricated circuit and test fixture are generic. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to the circuit, test fixture, or manufacturing process, nor does it integrate the mathematical model in a manner that applies or uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity (coupling to a test fixture, applying signals, measuring parameters) plus applying the exception to a generic circuit/testing environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B. These elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
As to claims 19-20 follow the identical structure and reasoning as Claim 18 above, with each dependent limitation analyzed as either part of the mathematical concept/mental process or as insignificant extra-solution activity/generic field-of-use limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept. The conclusion for each is “The claim is ineligible.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/TUNG X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/14/26
Prosecution Insights