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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for estimating a temperature of a component-under-test by first applying PCA to curve data to obtain principal components that best explain the variably (differences) between the captured curve data and then applying a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components, does not reasonably provide enablement for determining a temperature of the component-under-test using any difference between the curve data for the first current density and the curve data for the second current density, without more. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 recites:
A device including:
a component-under-test;
temperature circuitry including:
supply circuitry configured to:
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density; and
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density; and
processing circuitry configured to:
capture curve data for the electrical parameter levels used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities; and
determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test.
Regarding the limitation “determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test”, this language has a scope that includes determining a temperature of the component-under-test using any difference between the curve data for the first current density and the curve data for the second current density, without more. For example, merely subtracting a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the second current density from a value of a datapoint of the curve data for the first current density, and then using only the resulting difference without more to determine a temperature of the component-under-test would fall within the scope of the “determine” limitation.
The specification teaches at paragraph 25, however:
The processing circuitry 130 may implement various processing schemes to extract temperature data from the captured curve data. For example, a principal components analysis (PCA) may be used to determine temperature dependent components of the captured curve data to obtain a temperature level (e.g., based on calibration data for the temperature analysis device). For example, PCA may be performed on the temperature dependent curve data (e.g., to reduce the multicollinearity (e.g., the linear dependence on multiple different variables) so that the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data can be isolated (at least in part) from other contributions from other variables (e.g., via dimensionality reduction). A regression is performed on the PCA output, to map the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data to temperature (e.g., the regression inverts the temperature dependent contribution of the captured curve data, such that this data serves the independent variable in function that has temperature as a dependent variable).
(emphasis added)
Further, with reference to the subject matter of provisional application 63/522,844 which is incorporated into present specification by reference, the paper entitled “Accurate Temperature Measurement of Active Area for Wide-Bandgap Power Semiconductors” included in the provisional application discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification therefore discloses use of PCA to first obtain principal components that best explain variably (differences) in the captured curve data, and subsequent application of a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components. The scope of claim 1 appears to be considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure because the language “based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities” encompasses the use of any difference between the curve data (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, as a basis for determining a temperature of the component-under-test.
The question of whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the invention of claim 1 without undue experimentation is now considered in light of so-called Wands factors. See MPEP 2164.01(a). The nature of the invention is drawn to temperature analysis of electrical components. Although levels of ordinary skill and predictability in electrical component thermal modeling and temperature prediction based on electrical parameter levels is generally high, the scope of claim 1 is considerably broader than the scope of the disclosure because the claim encompasses the use of any difference between the curve data (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, as a basis for determining a temperature of the component-under-test. At the time of the application was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of various techniques for estimating/inferring electrical component temperatures, such as FET channel/junction temperatures, using one or more temperature-sensitive electrical parameters (TSEPS) such as on-state resistance, drain to source current gradient, gate threshold voltage, drain to source voltage gradient, gate leakage current and the like. Although the present specification provides direction and guidance as to how a temperature of a component-under-test may be estimated by first applying PCA to curve data to obtain principal components that best explain the variably (differences) between the captured curve data and then applying a regression analysis to these principal components to derive an expression for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test in terms of the principal components, the specification is not understood to provide any direction or guidance regarding how differences between curve data generally (e.g., subtractive differences between datapoints, as discussed above), with nothing more, provides a basis for estimating a temperature of the component-under-test. Aside from the PCA and regression-based approach discussed above, no working examples of such a determination appear to be disclosed. Weighing the above-identified factors, particularly the breadth of the claim with respect to the disclosure and the amount of direction and guidance provided, the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art could only make the entire scope of the claimed invention by resorting to undue experimentation. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. Because none of dependent claims 2-9 appear to address these deficiencies, claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, based on recitations that are analogous to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. Because none of dependent claims 11-14 and dependent claims 16-20 appear to address the deficiencies of claims 10 and 15, claims 11-14 and claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), scope of enablement, by virtue of their dependence from claims 10 and 15, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, “the voltage curve data” lacks antecedent basis support, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Clarification is required.
In claim 4, “the voltage curve difference” lacks antecedent basis support, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep).
Regarding claim 1, Kiep discloses a device including:
a component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; semiconductor die 100);
temperature circuitry including:
supply circuitry configured to:
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 200, measuring a first forward voltage drop (VF1) of the temperature sense diode 105 under a first test condition, with the first test condition involving driving a first known current IF1 through the temperature sense diode 105; Kiep’s supply of the first known current IF1 causes a corresponding change in electrical parameter VF1; Kiep necessarily includes supply circuitry that supplies the first known current IF1 and causes the corresponding change in electrical parameter VF1); and
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 210, measuring a second forward voltage drop (VF2) of the diode 105 under a second test condition, with the second test condition involving driving a second known current IF2 different than IF1 through the diode 105; Kiep’s supply of the second known current IF2 causes a corresponding change in electrical parameter VF2; Kiep necessarily includes supply circuitry that supplies the second known current IF2 and causes the corresponding change in electrical parameter VF2); and
processing circuitry configured to:
capture curve data for the electrical parameter levels used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43, see paragraph 43 in particular, integrated circuit 500 shown in FIG. 7 can be adapted for use with any of the diode-based temperature sensor embodiments described herein; for example with regard to the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in FIG. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current IF1 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current IF2 through the diode 105; the analysis unit 502 is at least partly digital in nature and can include memory 508 for storing the resulting forward voltage measurements VF1, VF; for example, the integrated circuit 502 can include ADC (analog-to-digital converter) circuitry 510 for converting analog forward voltage measurements to corresponding digital representations for storage in the memory 508; analysis unit 502 estimates the temperature of the discrete semiconductor device based on the difference between the forward voltage drop measurements stored in the memory 508 e.g. based on equation (1); in the case of the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the semiconductor die 100 needs to only have one force terminal and one sense terminal for measuring the forward voltage drops VF1, VF2; Kiep therefore discloses processing circuitry to capture curve data for the forward voltage levels (i.e., VF1, VF2) used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2, respectively); and
determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 220, temperature of the discrete semiconductor device 102 is then estimated based on ΔVF=(VF1−VF2), i.e., the difference between the first and second forward voltage drop measurements; also see paragraphs 24-28, equation 1, with ΔVF being a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
331
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kiep, Figs. 1-21
Regarding claim 2, Kiep discloses where the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature by isolating the curve difference (see Kiep as applied to claim 1, Kiep, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 18-21; also see Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 22-30; with reference to Fig. 2, step 220, temperature of the discrete semiconductor device 102 is then estimated based on ΔVF=(VF1−VF2), i.e., the difference between the first and second forward voltage drop measurements; also see paragraphs 24-28, equation 1, with ΔVF being a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities corresponding to first and second known currents IF1, IF2; Kiep’s calculation of ΔVF by analysis unit 502 constitutes isolating the curve difference).
Regarding claim 5, Kiep discloses where the selected first and second current densities correspond to different operational current regions of the component-under-test (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kiep discloses where the different operational current regions include: a below threshold operational region; an above threshold operational region; and/or an at or near threshold operational region (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3; the region of IF1, VF1 is therefore an above threshold operational region and the region of IF2, VF2 is an at or near threshold operational region).
Regarding claim 7, Kiep discloses where the different operational current regions include temperature regions, each temperature region characterized by a different relationship between current level and the electrical parameter (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 29, note in Fig. 3 that first and second known currents IF1, IF2 (and therefore corresponding first and second current densities) of diode 105 of semiconductor die 100 correspond to different operational current regions, e.g., IF1, VF1 are relatively large compared to IF2, VF2 which are shown as close to the threshold voltage VT of the diode 105 in Fig. 3; the region of IF1, VF1 is therefore an above threshold operational region and the region of IF2, VF2 is an at or near threshold operational region; the examiner notes that the diode 105 has a defined forward voltage drop to junction temperature relationship; accordingly the region of IF1, VF1 and the region of IF2, VF2 constitute temperature regions; further, the examiner notes that a diode characteristic is non-linear even over the region between VF1-VF2 shown in Fig. 3; accordingly each temperature region in Fig. 3 will characterized by a different relationship between current level and the forward voltage VF in Fig. 3; in other words, the relationship between IF/VF at the region of IF1, VF1 will be different than the relationship between IF/VF at the region of IF2, VF2).
Regarding claim 8, Kiep discloses where the supply circuitry includes a first current source circuit biased at a first level to supply the selected first current density and a second current source circuit biased at a second level to supply the selected second current density (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43, note first current source 504 for generating a first current IF1 and a second current source 506 for generating a second current IF2).
Claim 10 recites a method including:
supplying current to a component-under-test at multiple different current densities by varying an electrical parameter to hold the current at each of the multiple different current densities; and
at each of the multiple different current densities, capturing curve data while holding the current at the that one of multiple different current densities; and
determining, based at least in part on a curve difference among the curve data for the multiple different current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites determining the temperature includes isolating the curve difference and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 14 recites where the multiple different current densities correspond to different operational current regions of the component-under-test and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Kiep for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power et al., "An investigation of MOSFET statistical and temperature effects," ICMTS 92 Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Microelectronic Test Structures, San Diego, CA, USA, 1992, pp. 202-207 (Power).
Teachings of Power are considered at the outset. Power discloses that that device performance variations resulting from statistical process disturbances can be accurately predicted using measured parametric fluctuations and correlations in addition to a combination of principal component analysis and sensitivity analysis information (Abstract). Power discloses modeling effects of changes in operating temperature on device characteristics by examining and determining relationships between model parameter values and temperature, measured over a range of -50°C to +120°C (Abstract). An aspect of Power’s approach is to assess the ability of the device model and parameter extraction schemes to accurately predict device characteristics at chosen operating temperatures (page 202, section 1). This assessment entails steps such as: (1) measuring and comparing complete parameter sets and selected measured device characteristics over a -50°C to +120°C temperature range, (2) after the accuracy of the parameter sets over this range is validated, the individual parameters are examined for possible temperature dependences, and simple empirical expressions are fitted to parameters deemed to have a significant temperature dependence, and explanations for the observed dependences are sought. In connection with step (1), Power discloses varying a current (IDS) in connection with the parameter extraction (page 202, section 2, IDS measurements taken from each of three devices with different geometries was employed to extract 13 model parameters for each of these devices; also see page 203, section 4, sample device currents (IDS's), transconductances (gm's), and output conductances (gds's) were also measured from the test die at the same time as the model parameters were being extracted). In connection with step (2) Power discloses the use of principal component analysis (PCA) for identifying those principal components (e.g., linear combinations of the extracted parameters) that best explain the variance of the model parameters (Power, e.g., pages 203-204, sections 3-4). Power then identifies which parameters have significant temperature dependencies, seeks explanations for the temperature dependencies of any model parameters deemed to be temperature dependent, and fits simple empirical expressions to the relevant data (page 204, section 5). The empirical expressions may then be used to model device characteristics (e.g., VGS, IDS) as functions of temperature, as shown and described in connection with Figs. 3a-f (pages 204-206, section 5.1).
Turning now to claim 1, Power discloses a device including:
a component-under-test (see Power as discussed above, MOS device(s) from which parameters are extracted);
temperature circuitry including:
supply circuitry configured to:
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected first current density (see Power as discussed above, variation of IDS during MOS parameter extraction); and
vary an electrical parameter to hold current in the component-under-test at a selected second current density different from the first current density (see Power as discussed above, variation of IDS during MOS parameter extraction); and
processing circuitry configured to:
capture curve data for the electrical parameter levels used to hold the circuit at the first and second current densities (see Power as discussed above, acquisition of data during parameter extraction for different values of IDS; the examiner notes that acquired data includes IDS and VGS data; see, e.g., page 204, section 5.1, during model validation, the modeled data was recreated for the same biases by means of the model equations and the complete model parameter sets which were also recorded at each of the chosen temperatures, including IDS and VGS data data); and
determine, based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities, of the component-under-test (see Power as discussed above, Power’s application of PCA to the acquired data is used to obtain empirical expressions that represent a temperature dependence of the component under test based on a curve difference (variability) between the curve data identified by the application of PCA; also see model outputs of Figs. 3a-f (pages 204-206, section 5.1)).
Although Power does not explicitly disclose the use of the models/ empirical expressions for determining temperature of a MOS device, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that the models/ empirical expressions used to generate the outputs of Figs. 3a-f may be used to ascertain MOS device temperature based on IDS and VGS, for example. Such reasoning falls well within the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ in light of Power’s teachings. Accordingly, the recitation of determining temperature of the component-under-test based at least in part on a curve difference between the curve data for the first and second current densities does not patentably define over Power when considered in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Power as applied to claim 1c discloses where the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature by isolating the curve difference (see modified Power as applied to claim 1, Power’s application of PCA to the acquired data is used to obtain empirical expressions that represent a temperature dependence of the component under test based on a curve difference (variability) between the curve data identified by the application of PCA; also see model outputs of Figs. 3a-f (pages 204-206, section 5.1)).
Regarding claim 3, Power as applied to claim 2 discloses the processing circuitry is configured to isolate the curve difference by performing a principal components analysis on the voltage curve data (see modified Power as applied to claim 1, Power’s application of PCA to the acquired data is used to obtain empirical expressions that represent a temperature dependence of the component under test based on a curve difference (variability) between the curve data identified by the application of PCA; also see model outputs of Figs. 3a-f (pages 204-206, section 5.1)).
Regarding claim 4, Power as applied to claim 2 discloses the processing circuitry is configured to isolate the voltage curve difference by: applying a classification algorithm; performing a machine-learning analysis; and/or applying a neural network (see modified Power as applied to claim 1, Power’s application of PCA to the acquired data is used to obtain empirical expressions that represent a temperature dependence of the component under test based on a curve difference (variability) between the curve data identified by the application of PCA; also see model outputs of Figs. 3a-f (pages 204-206, section 5.1); the examiner notes that PCA constitutes unsupervised machine learning).
Claim 10 recites a method including:
supplying current to a component-under-test at multiple different current densities by varying an electrical parameter to hold the current at each of the multiple different current densities; and
at each of the multiple different current densities, capturing curve data while holding the current at the that one of multiple different current densities; and
determining, based at least in part on a curve difference among the curve data for the multiple different current densities, a temperature of the component-under-test,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Power for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1 over Power.
Claim 11 recites determining the temperature includes isolating the curve difference and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Power for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 2 over Power.
Claim 12 recites where isolating the curve difference includes performing a principal components analysis on the curve data and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Power for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 3 over Power.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0011058 to Kiep et al. (Kiep).
Regarding claim 9, Kiep discloses where:
the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a switch (Kiep, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 38-43; see paragraph 43 in particular, with regard to the single temperature sense diode embodiment of Fig. 1, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in Fig. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current 11 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current 12 through the diode 105); and
the second current source is coupled to the component-under-test via the switch, the switch configured to selectively couple the first and/or second current sources to the component-under-test (see Kiep as applied above, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraph 43, the integrated circuit 500 can include a switch or multiplexer (not shown in Fig. 7 for ease of illustration) for selecting the first current source 504 to drive test current 11 through the single diode 105 and then later selecting the second current source 506 to drive test current 12 through the diode 105).
Kiep is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a first shunt resistor and a switch, and the second current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a second shunt resistor and the switch. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of a shunt resistor for measuring current to provide feedback to a current source to ensure that current is suitably controlled was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Kiep such that the first current source is coupled to the component-under-test via a first shunt resistor and the switch. In this way, feedback to the first current source can be provided so that the current can be suitably controlled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0193370 to St. Pierre et al. relates to the design of temperature measurement devices.
P. M. Roschatt, R. A. McMahon and S. Pickering, "Temperature measurements of GaN FETs by means of average gate current sensing," 2015 IEEE 11th International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015, pp. 673-677 relates to estimation of the junction temperature of GaN FETs during operation using temperature dependent gate leakage.
M. H. Hedayati, H. C. P. Dymond, D. Liu and B. H. Stark, "Fast temperature sensing for GaN power devices using E-field probes," 2020 IEEE 21st Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL), Aalborg, Denmark, 2020, pp. 1-7 relates to a method of sensing the instantaneous junction temperature of GaN power devices, using a low-cost capacitive E-field probe and analogue circuitry.
J. Chen et al., "The Device Instability of p-GaN Gate HEMTs Induced by Self-Heating Effect Investigated by on-State Drain Current Injection (DCI) Technique," in IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 5496-5502, Oct. 2022 relates to investigation of the device stability of p-GaN gate HEMTs under self-heating effect by the ON-state drain current injection (DCI) technique.
S. Feng, P. Hu, G. Zhang, C. Guo, X. Xie and T. Chen, "Determination of channel temperature of AlGaN/GaN HEMT by electrical method," 2010 26th Annual IEEE Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium (SEMI-THERM), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2010, pp. 165-169 relates to investigation of the linear relationship of forward Schottky junction voltage of AlGaN/GaN HEMT with temperature and it use as temperature sensitive parameter to determine the channel temperature at its normal working state by fast switch circuit technique.
A. M. Darwish, A. J. Bayba and H. A. Hung, "Utilizing Diode Characteristics for GaN HEMT Channel Temperature Prediction," in IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 3188-3192, Dec. 2008 relates to measurement of channel temperature in GaN high-electron mobility transistors (HEMTs) using the Schottky gate-diode forward characteristic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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 R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863
1 Figs. 1-2 are copied from corresponding US 10,132,696 to Kiep et al. due to better image quality, but are otherwise identical to those of Kiep.