DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) received on 24 July 2026. Claims 13-20 have been previously withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 7-11, filed 24 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 USC 101 abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument the Office has properly established that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea despite the claimed physical system and controller-mediated auto-commissioning operation, Examiner maintains that the claims recite, in part, abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- comparing the monitored parameter values to a model; based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values are within expected or unexpected ranges; taking a first action if the monitored parameter values are within the expected ranges; and taking a second action if the monitored parameter values are within the unexpected ranges). Applicant states model may comprise a data-structure, e.g. tables, including acceptable operating ranges for various values. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." The user interface, controller, and controller as claimed are generally recited computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation.
Some limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use or merely appending well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.
The claims as a whole are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea, data gathering and data manipulation per se and mathematical concepts) and clearly seek to tie up the abstract idea. An example of a case identifying a concept relating to a data comparison that is analogous to human mental work as abstract is Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC (collecting and comparing known information). An example of a case identifying a concept relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that is analogous to human mental work as abstract is Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (organizing information through mathematical correlations). The amendments are additional insignificant extra-solution activities. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form. The claims recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 remain therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 September 2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sure device” should be “user device in claim 1 line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), in part, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display screen, the GUI operable to receive user parameter values from a user; receive monitored parameter values from a space conditioning unit (SCU) controller; and perform an auto-commissioning routine using the user parameter value and the monitored parameter values, the auto-commissioning routine including: generating a command for the SCU controller to place the SCU in heating and cooling modes; receiving the monitored parameter values in the heating and cooling modes and comparing the monitored parameter values to a model; based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values are within expected or unexpected ranges; taking a first action if the monitored parameter values are within the expected ranges; and taking a second action if the monitored parameter values are within the unexpected ranges. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values are within expected or unexpected ranges). The claim recites the step of comparing collected information to a model, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as mere data gathering, insignificant application, and/or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 1-12 are directed to a space conditioning system.
Claims 1-12 are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception Recited?
Claims 1-12 are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values are within expected or unexpected ranges) given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claim 1, this claim recites the limitations of "based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values are within expected or unexpected ranges." As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind.
As per claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of "to receive the SCU identifier and to select a model based on the SCU identifier." As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind.
As per claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of "to receive the SCU identifier and to reconfigure a general model into the model based on the SCU identifier." As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas
or equations.
As per claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of "to present a calculator operable to convert an SCU parameter value into a measurable parameter value and to receive a user input comprising the measurable parameter value." As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of "to calculate an estimated refrigerant charge based upon an air handler/coil, a condensing unit and a line set diameter and length." As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts.
Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas
or equations.
As per claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of "to compare refrigerant
pressures, temperatures, superheat and subcooling to determine if an amount of the
refrigerant charge in the space conditioning system is sufficient." As drafted, these
limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8 and 12 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 1.
Applicant teaches model may comprise a data-structure, e.g. tables, including acceptable operating ranges for various values. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind."
Claims 1-12 remain directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-12 remain directed to abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts).
Step 2A, Prong Two, Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
As per claim 1, this claim recites the limitations of "present a graphical
user interface (GUI) on a display screen, the GUI operable to receive user parameter
values from a user; receive monitored parameter values from a space conditioning unit
(SCU) controller; taking a first action if the monitored parameter values are within the
expected ranges; and taking a second action if the monitored parameter values are
within the unexpected ranges." As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than
high-level recitation of a generic computer components, computer elements used as tools, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f) and an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data outputting, and insignificant application. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
As per claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of "an AID link wired to the
SCU and providing an access point to transmit the monitored parameter values to the
AID application and to receive from the AID application the user parameter values
from the user." As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than an insignificant
extra-solution activity of data gathering, data outputting, and insignificant application.
Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
As per claims 4 and 5, these claims similarly recite the limitations of "to receive the SCU identifier." As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data outputting, and insignificant application. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
As per claims 6 and 8, these claims similarly recite the limitations of "the first
action comprises storing the monitored parameter values to verify installation based
on the auto-commissioning routine and the auto-commissioning routine comprises
processing instructions configured to store control-verified parameter values." As
drafted, these limitations encompass no more than an insignificant extra-solution
activity of data gathering, data outputting, and insignificant application. Extra-
solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
As per claims 7 and 12, these claims similarly recite the limitations of "the
second action comprises presenting topical troubleshooting content and auto-
commissioning routine comprises processing instructions configured to present an
amount of increase or decrease of the refrigerant charge if the amount of the
refrigerant charge in the space conditioning system is not sufficient." As drafted, these
limitations encompass no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data
gathering, data outputting, and insignificant application. Extra-solution activity
includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 2 further elaborates upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 1.
The additional elements recite high-level recitation of a generic computer components, computer elements used as tools, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity as pre-
solution data gathering and post solution data outputting and do not provide
integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim
elements together and claims in their entirety do not provide integration into a
practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and
claims in their entirety do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or
provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The concept
described in the claim(s) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by
the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claims describes the
concept identified as an abstract idea (data gathering, data outputting and data
transmission). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate
the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Adding a step of storing data to a system that only recites comparing collected information to a model (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the system of comparing collected information to a model. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. The claims as a whole do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
Claims 1-12 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical
application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept (Significantly More)?
When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the
additional elements and elements of claims 1-12 do not amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the
additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplish execution of the abstract ideas. The additional limitations identified
as insignificant extra-solution activity above are carried over and they also do not
provide significantly more.
As per claims 1-12, these claims similarly recite the limitations of "a user device comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory storing an AID application comprising processing instructions operable by a that when executed by the processor, cause the sure device to: present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display screen, the GUI operable to receive user parameter values from a user; receive monitored parameter values from a space conditioning unit (SCU) controller; taking a first action if the monitored parameter values are within the expected ranges; and taking a second action if the monitored parameter values are within the unexpected ranges; a SCU including the SCU controller; and a communications interface configured to communicate with the SCU controller via a wired or wireless AID link." As drafted, these limitations encompass insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g), Courts have held found mere data gathering and insignificant application to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the
claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the
abstract idea. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-12 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed
to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN 106104163 B to MIYATA et al.
As per claim 1, the MIYATA et al. reference discloses a space conditioning system comprising: an AID application (see page 10 4th paragraph, “air conditioner commissioning application”) comprising processing instructions (see page 7 6th paragraph, “control program”) operable by a processor (see page 7 5th paragraph, “mobile terminal control part 501”) to: present a graphical user interface (GUI) (“operation part 505”) on a display screen (“display part 504”), the GUI (“operation part 505”) operable to receive user parameter values (“receiving input”) from a user (“user”); receive monitored parameter values (see page 2 8th paragraph, “information related to the air conditioner”) from a space conditioning unit (SCU) controller (“centralized control apparatus 3”), and perform an auto-commissioning routine (see page 7 6th paragraph, “air conditioner commissioning application”) using the user parameter value (“input”) and the monitored parameter values (“information”), the auto-commissioning routine (“air conditioner commissioning application”) including: generating a command for the SCU controller (“centralized control apparatus 3”) to place the SCU (see page 4 10th paragraph, “conditioner commissioning system”) in heating and cooling modes (“operating mode (heating operation or cooling operation)”); receiving the monitored parameter values (“measurement value”) in the heating and cooling modes (“operating mode (heating operation or cooling operation)”) and comparing the monitored parameter values (see page 16 3rd paragraph, “measurement value”) to a model (see page 14 5th paragraph, “commissioning table”); based on the comparison, determining if the monitored parameter values (“measurement value”) are within expected (“normal”) or unexpected ranges (“abnormal”); taking a first action (see page 17 4th paragraph, “making the display part 504 display the commissioning”) if the monitored parameter values (“measurement value”) are within the expected ranges (“normal”); and taking a second action (see page 15 3rd paragraph, “alarm code”) if the monitored parameter values (“measurement value”) are within the unexpected ranges (“abnormal”).
As per claim 2, the reference discloses a SCU (“conditioner commissioning system”) including the SCU controller (“centralized control apparatus 3”).
As per claim 3, the reference discloses an AID link (“air conditioner commissioning application”) wired (see page 4 11th paragraph, “air conditioner for communication transmission line 6”) to the SCU (“conditioner commissioning system”) and providing an access point (“wireless adapter 4”) to transmit the monitored parameter values (“measurement value”) to the AID application (“air conditioner commissioning application”) and to receive from the AID application (“air conditioner commissioning application”) the user parameter values (“input”) from the user (“user”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to commissioning of building automation controllers:
CN 114764530 A to LUO et al.
CN 102713780 B to KOLK et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J Barnes-Bullock whose telephone number is (571)272-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/CRYSTAL J BARNES-BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 10 October 2026
