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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s)
Generic Placeholder or “means for”
Functional Language
Corresponding Structure
1
A functional “unit”
outputs a diagnosis target signal for diagnosing a characteristic variation of a physical quantity
In one embodiment may be, for example, a power supply circuit that outputs a predetermined voltage, a constant current circuit for supplying a reference current to another function disposed in the semiconductor component, or an oscillation circuit that generates a clock to be used in the semiconductor component or any equivalent, see Paragraph [0038].
1
A reference generation “unit”
outputs a reference signal representing a physical quantity serving as a reference for diagnosing the characteristic variation
In one embodiment may be configured such that one or more of the above-described constant voltage circuit, constant current circuit, and oscillation circuit are mounted, and one of the outputs is selected and output as the reference signal or any equivalent, see Paragraph [0037].
1
A diagnosis “unit”
detects the characteristic variation of the physical quantity represented by the diagnosis target signal
In one embodiment In one embodiment performing a diagnosis by comparing the voltage values in the first embodiment is a circuit including a subtraction circuit and a comparator circuit as illustrated in FIG. 2 or any equivalent, see Paragraph [0042].
2
A display “unit”
displays the diagnosis result
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification
4
A correction and storage “unit”
corrects a characteristic of the functional unit, based on the difference signal, and stores a cumulative correction amount
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification. The specification merely states that the correction and storage unit contains a correction amount calculation unit, a corrected amount storage unit, and a correction limit determination unit, see Paragraph [0068].
5
A diagnosis control “unit”
outputs a diagnosis control signal
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification.
6
An input selection “unit”
Outputs… the reference signal output from the reference generation unit
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification.
6 and 7
An output selection “unit”
(claim 6) selects one of a plurality of diagnosis results output from the plurality of the semiconductor components and outputs the selected diagnosis result to the diagnosis control unit
(claim 7) outputs the difference signal output from the diagnosis unit to the correction and storage unit of the selected one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification.
7
A diagnosis target signal selection “unit”
Selects… any one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components that is to be diagnosed, and that outputs the diagnosis target signal to the diagnosis unit
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the column of the 112(f) grid entitled “Functional Language” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to, a display “unit” (claim 2), a correction and storage “unit” (claim 4), a diagnosis control “unit” (claim 5), an input selection “unit” (claim 6), an output selection “unit” (claims 6 and 7), and a diagnosis target signal selection “unit” (claim 7) does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 2 and 4-7 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.
Claim limitations:
a display “unit” (claim 2),
a correction and storage “unit” (claim 4),
a diagnosis control “unit” (claim 5),
an input selection “unit” (claim 6),
an output selection “unit” (claims 6 and 7), and
a diagnosis target signal selection “unit” (claim 7)
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Because the amplifier device has no structure in the specification that matches the said amplifier device, it is unclear as to what the amplifier device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Because the evaluation device has no structure in the specification that matches the said evaluation device, it is unclear as to what the evaluation device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear to determine whether the limitation “a semiconductor diagnostic system” (line 1 of claim 7) and the limitation “a semiconductor diagnostic system” (line 1 of claim 8) refers to the limitation “a semiconductor diagnostic system” (line 1 of claim 1), or, if it is a new limitation. In addition, the examiner interprets said limitations as being the same.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurimoto et al (US 2017/0356947 A1, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Kurimoto) in view of Zhang et al (US 2016/0216318 A1, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Kurimoto teaches a semiconductor diagnostic system (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 100 and Par 0037; Kurimoto teaches a circuit to test an electronic part) comprising:
a semiconductor component (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 14) including a functional unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 53) that outputs a diagnosis target signal for diagnosing a characteristic variation of a physical quantity (Kurimoto; Par 0060; Kurimoto teaches a sensor that outputs a usage condition);
a reference generation unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 51) that outputs a reference signal representing a physical quantity serving as a reference for diagnosing the characteristic variation (Kurimoto; Par 0060; Kurimoto teaches at least a reference signal from a high precision battery is generated); and
a diagnosis unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 52) that detects the characteristic variation of the physical quantity represented by the diagnosis target signal (Kurimoto; Par 0060; Kurimoto teaches the control calculation device receives the physical quantity and determines the correction, i.e. characteristic variation),
wherein the diagnosis unit outputs a comparison result between the physical quantity represented by the diagnosis target signal and the physical quantity represented by the reference signal (Kurimoto; Fig 4, Element 4-5, Par 0053, and 0073; Kurimoto teaches a comparison step is made between the reference and the detected quantity).
Kurimoto is silent on the reference generation unit is disposed at a place where the reference generation units is affected by a smaller environmental influence than the semiconductor component.
Zhang teaches the reference generation unit (Zhang; Fig 2, Element 140) is disposed at a place where the reference generation units is affected by a smaller environmental influence than the semiconductor component (Zhang; Fig 2, Element 130; Par 0023; Zhang teaches a reference conductor has its resistance measured to determine temperature and that it is offset from the sense conductor to protect it from temperature variations).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Kurimoto with the reference generation of Kurimoto in order to better determine when the component will fail (Zhang; Par 0026).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1. Kurimoto further teaches further comprising a display unit (Kurimoto; Par 0008; Kurimoto teaches a display unit may be used to display the results), wherein, when a difference obtained by comparing the physical quantity of the diagnosis target signal with the physical quantity of the reference signal is larger than a predetermined value (Kurimoto; Fig 4, Element 4-5, Par 0053, and 0073; Kurimoto teaches a comparison step is made between the reference and the detected quantity), the diagnosis unit outputs a diagnosis result indicating that there is a sign of abnormality (Kurimoto; Par 0057; Kurimoto teaches the signal after the limit is reached is output), and displays the diagnosis result on the display unit (Kurimoto; Par 0008; Kurimoto teaches a display unit may be used to display the results).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1. Kurimoto further teaches wherein a temporal variation amount of the physical quantity of the reference signal is relatively smaller than a temporal variation amount of the physical quantity represented by the diagnosis target signal (Kurimoto; Par 0016 and 0060; Kurimoto teaches a high precision battery is used for the reference signal for a low precision part).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1. Kurimoto further teaches further comprising a correction and storage unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Elements 56, 57 and Par 0060; Kurimoto teaches memory is used to store the values), wherein the diagnosis unit further outputs, as a difference signal, a difference of the physical quantity of the diagnosis target signal with respect to the physical quantity represented by the reference signal (Kurimoto; Fig 4, Element 4-5, Par 0053, and 0073; Kurimoto teaches a comparison step is made between the reference and the detected quantity as a difference signal), the correction and storage unit corrects a characteristic of the functional unit, based on the difference signal, and stores a cumulative correction amount (Kurimoto; Figs 7A-7C, Par 0060, and 0064; Kurimoto teaches a reference table is made from measured data), and the correction and storage unit outputs a correction limit notification when the cumulative correction amount reaches a predetermined amount (Kurimoto; Par 0073 and 0075; Kurimoto teaches when the deterioration limit is reached the data is output).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 4. Kurimoto further teaches further comprising: a plurality of the semiconductor components (Kurimoto; Fig 1, Elements 13A and 13B); and a diagnosis control unit that outputs a diagnosis control signal designating any one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components that is to be diagnosed (Kurimoto; Fig 1, Element 11, Par 0037, and 0038; Kurimoto teaches the MCU controls which component is diagnosed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 5, further comprising: an input selection unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 58; Kurimoto teaches a communication input/output unit) that outputs, in accordance with the diagnosis control signal output from the diagnosis control unit, the reference signal output from the reference generation unit to the any one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components that is to be diagnosed (Kurimoto; Par 0038; Kurimoto teaches the part may be selected based on desiring a deterioration diagnosis to be carried out); and an output selection unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 58; Kurimoto teaches a communication input/output unit) that selects one of a plurality of diagnosis results output from the plurality of the semiconductor components and outputs the selected diagnosis result to the diagnosis control unit (Kurimoto; Par 0073 and 0075; Kurimoto teaches when the deterioration limit is reached the data is output).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 5, further comprising: a diagnosis target signal selection unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 58; Kurimoto teaches a communication input/output unit that selects the signal to be sent) that selects, in accordance with the diagnosis control signal output from the diagnosis control unit, any one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components that is to be diagnosed (Kurimoto; Par 0038; Kurimoto teaches the part may be selected based on desiring a deterioration diagnosis to be carried out), and that outputs the diagnosis target signal to the diagnosis unit; and an output selection unit (Kurimoto; Fig 5, Element 58; Kurimoto teaches a communication input/output unit) that outputs the difference signal output from the diagnosis unit to the correction and storage unit of the selected one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components (Kurimoto; Par 0073 and 0075; Kurimoto teaches when the deterioration limit is reached the data is output), and outputs a correction limit notification output from the correction and storage unit of the selected one semiconductor component of the plurality of the semiconductor components to the diagnosis control unit (Kurimoto; Par 0073 and 0075; Kurimoto teaches when the deterioration limit is reached the data is output), wherein the diagnosis unit is shared by the plurality of the semiconductor components (Kurimoto; Par 0060; Kurimoto teaches it is part of an ASIC), and a diagnosis result is output from the diagnosis unit to the diagnosis control unit (Kurimoto; Par 0073 and 0075; Kurimoto teaches when the deterioration limit is reached the data is output).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches a semiconductor diagnostic system for a vehicle, wherein, in the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1 (Kurimoto; Par 0013; Kurimoto teaches it is part of an ECU for a vehicle), Zhang further teaches the semiconductor component is disposed outside a vehicle cabin of a vehicle, and the reference generation unit is disposed inside the vehicle cabin (Zhang; Par 0023; Zhang teaches that the reference component should be placed apart from the sensed component, i.e. away from a source of cold or heat).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches a semiconductor diagnostic system for a vehicle, wherein, in the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1 (Kurimoto; Par 0013; Kurimoto teaches it is part of an ECU for a vehicle), Zhang further teaches the reference generation unit is disposed outside a vehicle, and the semiconductor component is disposed on the vehicle (Zhang; Par 0023; Zhang teaches that the reference component should be placed apart from the sensed component, i.e. away from a source of cold or heat).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1. Kurimoto further teaches wherein the environmental influence is a thermal influence (Kurimoto; Par 0062; Kurimoto teaches temperature may be the environmental influence).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kurimoto and Zhang teaches the semiconductor diagnostic system according to claim 1. Kurimoto further teaches wherein the environmental influence is an influence of humidity (Kurimoto; Par 0005 and 0062; Kurimoto teaches any external environmental condition may be monitored, such as air pressure which may vary based on humidity).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Shimizu teaches monitoring a second circuit using a first circuit with a reference voltage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights