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 .
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a device claim. Likewise, claims 7 and 14 are a method and device claims respectively.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” or “mental process and concepts performed in the human mind” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 7 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of a temperature measurement system configured to sample a raw temperature sensor reading provided by a temperature sensor at a temperature sampling rate to provide a plurality of actual temperature values;
a temperature interpolation system configured to sample a temperature prediction that has been predicted by the electronic device at a temperature interpolation rate to provide a plurality of interpolated temperature values, the temperature interpolation rate being greater than the temperature sampling rate; and a performance manager configured to: combine the plurality of actual temperature values at the temperature sampling rate and the plurality of interpolated temperature values at the temperature interpolation rate to estimate a plurality of temperatures of the electronic device at the temperature interpolation rate, compare the plurality of temperatures of the electronic device at the temperature interpolation rate to a temperature threshold, and
adjust performance of the electronic device when one or more of the plurality of temperatures of the electronic device at the temperature interpolation rate is greater than the temperature threshold.. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts (i.e data interpolation) and mental processes (i.e. comparing data). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are an electronic device, a temperature sensor, a temperature interpolation system, a performance manager, a memory and a processor, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to determine the temperature interpolation rate. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data processing are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “combine the plurality of actual temperature values at the temperature sampling rate and the plurality of interpolated temperature values at the temperature interpolation rate to estimate a plurality of temperatures of the electronic device at the temperature interpolation rate,”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined temperatures.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 20 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Note: In order to overcome the 101 rejection the Examiner points to paragraph [0044] of Applicants disclosure; where it recites adjusting the performance of the electronic device by reducing the operating voltage or operating frequency. This can be considered something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Relevant Art
The following publications are prior art made of record not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Karaki US 2020/0292394 A1. The system in Karaki keeps a running log of two temperature values and time stamps in nonvolatile memory. It periodically checks whether the expected sequence of readings has a gap. If a gap is found, the device estimates the missing temperatures using a preset interpolation formula.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights