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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 14, 2024, May 6, 2024 and January 15, 2026 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on March 14, 2024 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
In reference to claim 1: IGBT needs to be defined before its use in the claim. As a formal matter, the bullets in each step should be deleted, indentation for each step is a formal practice accepted by the office. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) ). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate sub-combinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
With regard to claim 3: the term NTC should be defined before its use.
With regard to claims 7 and 8: some of the variables in the respective equations should be defined as to their representation.
With regard to claim 10: the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remaining claims depend on their respective base claims and include the attributes of the base claims and/or have similar issues.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-19: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime of an electric converter comprising at least one power electronic module with at least one IGBT and diode, with or without a baseplate, a heatsink and at least one controller, the method comprising the steps of:
repeatedly measuring the temperature of the reference point of the power electronic module;
repeatedly measuring the operation conditions of the power electronic module and calculating the power loss of the power electronic module;
repeatedly calculating the case temperature at the baseplate or the heatsink temperature at the heatsink based on the measured temperatures of the electronic module reference point, the power losses of the electronic module and the thermal impedance between electronic module reference point and case or thermal impedance between electronic module reference point and heatsink;
repeatedly calculating the junction temperatures based on the temperatures of the electronic module case temperature or on the heatsink temperature, the power losses of the electronic module IGBT and diode and the thermal impedance between junction and case or thermal impedance between junction and heatsink;
storing the case temperature and junction temperature to memory;
applying a rain-flow cycle counting algorithm to the stored temperatures;
calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime based on cyclic lifetime models of chip and baseplate; and
outputting a signal indicative of the remaining cyclic lifetime.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of "A method for calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime of an electric converter with the steps of repeatedly measuring the temperature of the reference point of the power electronic module;
repeatedly measuring the operation conditions of the power electronic module and calculating the power loss of the power electronic module; repeatedly calculating the case temperature at the baseplate or the heatsink temperature at the heatsink based on the measured temperatures of the electronic module reference point, the power losses of the electronic module and the thermal impedance between electronic module reference point and case or thermal impedance between electronic module reference point and heatsink; repeatedly calculating the junction temperatures based on the temperatures of the electronic module case temperature or on the heatsink temperature, the power losses of the electronic module IGBT and diode and the thermal impedance between junction and case or thermal impedance between junction and heatsink; applying a rain-flow cycle counting algorithm to the stored temperatures; and calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime based on cyclic lifetime models of chip and baseplate". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, calculating temperature using specific mathematical relationships, as noted in the instant application). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the
§101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of " power electronic module with at least one IGBT and diode, with or without a baseplate, a heatsink and at least one controller, storing the case temperature and junction temperature to memory; and outputting a signal indicative of the remaining cyclic lifetime" However, these are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, namely outputting the result of the abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites that the method also includes at least “one controller”. However, the it is just a merely a generic hardware element.
Further, the claim recites " outputting a signal indicative of the remaining cyclic lifetime". However, this step is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “A method for calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime of an electric converter”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim establishes a computation as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to describing the impedance variable and storing the corresponding values as carried by the controller, which amounts to as insignificantly extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to the sensor type for the purpose of data gathering at a high level of generality.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is describing the electronic module and is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 5: the instant claim is directed to describing the output of the algorithm and would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim 6: the instant claim is directed to characterizing the power loss of the electronic module as computed through the algorithm; and would be considered a computational analysis and/or human thought process.
Dependent claims 7 and 8: the instant claims are directed to computational analysis and would be considered a mathematical algorithm.
Dependent claim 9: the instant claim is directed to a generic controller in order to carry out the computational analysis; which is a generic computer element invoked as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: the instant claim is directed to the concept of gathering sensor data through a sensor of some type, and would be considered a data gathering at a high level of generality.
Dependent claims 11 and 12: the instant claims are characterization of the hardware element and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 13-15: the instant claims are directed to characterization of the output signal or labeling of it, and would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity as characterization of the output would be outputting of abstract idea.
Dependent claims 16-19: the instant claims are directed to the computed power loss of the electronic module; and would part of the computational analysis and would be considered an abstract idea.
Art of Interest
In reference to claims 1-19: Mohamed Halick et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,591,001, hereon Mohamed) discloses a method of monitoring health of a power semiconductor device includes: determining a steady state loading of the power semiconductor device; when it is determined that the power semiconductor device is under a steady state loading, monitoring a case temperature parameter relating to a temperature of the case of the power semiconductor device over a predetermined period, derive a normalized parameter from the monitored case temperature parameter and determine the health of the power semiconductor device based on the normalized parameter (see Mohamed, Abstract and Fig. 2).
The instant application is different from Mohamed in that “repeatedly calculating the junction temperatures based on the temperatures of the electronic module case temperature or on the heatsink temperature, the power losses of the electronic module IGBT and diode and the thermal impedance between junction and case or thermal impedance between junction and heatsink; storing the case temperature and junction temperature to memory; applying a rain-flow cycle counting algorithm to the stored temperatures; [and] calculating the remaining cyclic lifetime based on cyclic lifetime models of chip and baseplate” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,976,984) discloses a method and a system for predicting a junction temperature of a power semiconductor module in the full life cycle and a terminal. The method includes the steps: arranging an NTC thermistor network to monitor the temperature of each area inside the power module when the power module works; obtaining data for training the neural network by utilizing finite element simulation or experiments, and building a neural network model among the temperature of the NTC resistor network, a water flow rate, an aging factor and the junction temperature of the chip under working conditions.
Yao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,215,657) discloses a prediction detection method for a junction temperature of a semiconductor power device, and specifically, to a real-time online prediction method for a dynamic junction temperature of a semiconductor power device. The prediction allows to estimate the life cycle of the semiconductor device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights