DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment received on 11 February 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn.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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 10-12, filed 11 February 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 that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea, Examiner reiterates 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). The user interface 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 1-20 remain therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 12-15, filed 11 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Drawings
The amendments to the specification were received on 11 February 2026. These corrections are acceptable.
Specification
To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant has clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. Applicants respectfully submit that AID is not an abbreviation but instead is just that an “AID” application (e.g., AID App) that assists technicians. The objection to the abstract and disclosure is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant has clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. Applicants respectfully submit that AID is not an abbreviation but instead is just that an “AID” application (e.g., AID App) that assists technicians. The objection to the claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendments to the claim were received on 11 February 2026. The 35 USC 101 software per se rejection has been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 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 -- 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). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the 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 -- 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) given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
A human can make an observation, evaluation, judgment of operating states by 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. Note that there is nothing in the claim language so complex that the first or second action cannot be decided mentally. See, “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result”, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
As per claim 1, this claim recites the limitations of "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." 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 concepts performed in the human mind.
As per claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of "the first action comprises storing the monitored parameter values to verify installation based on the auto- commissioning routine." As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind.
As per claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of "to store control-verified parameter values." As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind.
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, 7 and 12 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim
1.
Claims 1-12 are 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 are
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. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. 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. See MPEP
2106.05(g).
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. 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.
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.
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 building automation controllers:
US 11,280,508 B1 to Kraft
US 11,255,558 B1 to Kraft
US 11,237,576 B2 to Noboa et al.
US 11,156,971 B2 to Buda et al.
US 2023/0250990 A1 to UDAKA et al.
US 2023/0167996 A1 to Fuhrmann
CN 114282169 A to GUO et al.
CN 114294637 A to WEI et al.
DE 112016002423 T5 to MIYAKOSHI et al.
EP 0156707 A1 to BALDONI
WO 2021053506 A1 to JINENDRA et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 27 April 2026
Prosecution Insights