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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 11-16) in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Therefore claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/11/2026.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 11-16 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 for monitoring a temperature of an electrical/electronic component connected via an electrical lead system, comprising the steps of:
using a temperature sensor in heat-conductive contact with the electrical lead system to record a current temperature; and
determining a temperature of the electrical/electronic component by a model from the current temperature of the temperature sensor when a current is switched off.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“using a temperature sensor in heat-conductive contact with the electrical lead system to record a current temperature” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determining a temperature of the electrical/electronic component by a model from the current temperature of the temperature sensor when a current is switched off” is directed to math because determining a temperature of a part using a model related to math, specifically involving differential equation, thermal resistance, and heat transfer equations.
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 determining a temperature of the electrical/electronic component by a model from the current temperature of the temperature sensor when a current is switched off” 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:
“A method for monitoring a temperature of an electrical/electronic component connected via an electrical lead system” recited in the preamble 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)).
“using a temperature sensor in heat-conductive contact with the electrical lead system to record a current temperature” 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)).
“determining a temperature of the electrical/electronic component by a model from the current temperature of the temperature sensor when a current is switched off” 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)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
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).
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:
“A method for monitoring a temperature of an electrical/electronic component connected via an electrical lead system” recited in the preamble 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)).
“using a temperature sensor in heat-conductive contact with the electrical lead system to record a current temperature” 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)).
“determining a temperature of the electrical/electronic component by a model from the current temperature of the temperature sensor when a current is switched off” 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)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the model represents a time offset of the temperature of the electrical/electronic component in relation to the current temperature” 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 13, “wherein the current is switched off from time to time for a measuring time period to record the current temperature” 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 14, “wherein the electrical/electronic component is a switch” 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 15, “wherein the switch is part of an electrical energy storage system that has a battery” 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 16, “wherein the temperature sensor is installed in an ammeter” 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)).
Hence the claims 11-16 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille (US 6,504,697, IDS record) in view of Bohlender et al. (US 20050173394 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hille disclose a method for temperature monitoring (column 5, lines 24-27) of an electrical/electronic component ("switch M1" (2), "temperature sensor Q1 (5)", and "load" (RL)) connected to an electrical wiring system (Fig. 6), whereby its heating is estimated using a model (column 5, line 54), wherein a temperature sensor in thermal contact with the electrical wiring system ("temperature sensor Q1") is used to detect a current temperature (T), and the model (column 5, line 54), when the current (I) is off, infers the temperature (T) of the electrical/electronic component ("switch M1”) from the temperature (T) of the temperature sensor ("temperature sensor Q1")) (column 5, lines 47-54).
Hille fails to disclose the temperature is recorded when the power is turned off.
Bohlender et al. teach the temperature is recorded when the power is turned off (para. [0013]: temperature monitoring of the transistor or through different electronic monitoring of the actual temperature for the timely switching off of the currents before overheating occurs).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate the temperature is recorded when the power is turned off of Bohlender et al. with the method of Hille for the purposes of providing an improved an overheating protection system with a control unit protected against overheating (Bohlender et al., abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Bohlender et al. disclose wherein the model represents a time offset of the temperature of the electrical/electronic component in relation to the current temperature (para. [0007]: Electrical auxiliary heaters reach their operating temperature after just a few seconds and can therefore accordingly heat up the air flowing through).
Regarding claim 13, Hille wherein the current is switched off from time to time for a measuring time period to record the current temperature (column 8, lines 32-37: This load current can flow for a short period, in particular up to several seconds, in the switch M1, without causing damage to the switch. In the process, the switch M1 heats up and the excess temperature monitoring switches off once the maximum permissible switch temperature is reached Electrical auxiliary heaters reach their operating temperature after just a few seconds and can therefore accordingly heat up the air flowing through).
Regarding claim 14, Hille discloses wherein the electrical/electronic component is a switch (switch M1).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille (US 6,504,697) in view of Bohlender et al. (US 20050173394 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Galamb (DE 102015203525 A1, IDS record).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hille and Bohlender et al. fail to disclose wherein the switch is part of an electrical energy storage system that has a battery.
Galamb teaches wherein the switch is part of an electrical energy storage system (20) that has a battery (21)(abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate the switch is part of an electrical energy storage system that has a battery of Galamb with the method of Hille in view of Bohlender et al. for the purposes of providing an improved high voltage system (Galamb, abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Galamb teaches the temperature sensor is installed in an ammeter (para. [0033]).
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 Eastern Time.
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