DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/281,379 filed on February 5, 2026 in which claims 1, 7, 11, 14-17, and 19 were amended; claims 5 and 13 were cancelled; and claims 21-22 were added.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-22 are pending, of which claims 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); 14, 6-12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 14, 15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 5, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 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).
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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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), because the claim limitations 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 limitations are: “connection means,” “short-range wireless communication module” in claim 1
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the connection means is being interpreted as limited to a “data cable allowing the transfer of data between the room unit and the HVAC system,” “a WiFi or Bluetooth® module which allows the wireless exchange of data between the room unit and the HVAC system” (Spec. 3, ll. 13-17), “a connector for a bus system, preferably for a field bus system,” or “a receptacle for a plug of a cable” and their equivalents. (Spec. 9, l. 25-9, l. 2). The short-range wireless communication module is being interpreted as limited to “a near field communication module and/or a Bluetooth® Low Energy communication module” and their equivalents. (Spec. 4, ll. 6-7).
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “connection means,” “short-range wireless communication module” in claims 8 and 19, respectively.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: These claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, these claims contains the trademark Bluetooth. Where a trademark is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark. In the present case, the trademark is used to identify/describe a particular wireless protocol that is subject to change and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, this claim depend from claim 19 and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirkby et al., US Publication 2016/0094994 (hereinafter Kirkby).
Regarding claim 1, Kirkby discloses a room unit for an HVAC system comprising “a connection means configured to electrically connect the room unit to the HVAC system” (Kirkby ¶ 41 and Fig. 1) where the HVAC is connected to a thermostat (i.e., room unit) and Fig. 1 shows a direct connection between the two. Additionally, Kirkby discloses “a controller.” (Kirkby ¶ 50). Finally, Kirkby discloses “a short-range wireless communication module configured to perform wireless communication with a mobile device to exchange data between the mobile device and the room unit, and vice versa” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where a Bluetooth Low Entergy (BLE) links connect the system to smart phones (i.e., a mobile device). Finally, Kirkby “wherein the controller is configured to allow or deny the exchange of specific data between the room unit and the mobile device, and vice versa, based on access rights stored in a memory of the room unit” (Kirkby ¶¶ 101-102) where the system only allows the user on to the network, and thus allowed to exchange data with the system, upon verification of the user’s authentication tag (i.e., access rights).
Regarding claim 2, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein the short-range wireless communication module is a near field communication module or a Bluetooth Low Energy communication module” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where the short-range wireless communication module is a BLE communication module.
Regarding claim 3, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “the room unit further comprises at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of ambient air” (Kirkby ¶ 54) where the sensors include temperature sensors (i.e., measures at least one parameter of ambient air). Further, Kirkby discloses “the controller is configured to transmit the at least one parameter to the mobile device and/or the HVAC system” (Kirkby ¶ 65 and Fig. 4) where the data sources, which includes the sensors, are shown to communicate with the data consumer, which includes the HVAC system.
Regarding claim 4, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “said data comprises at least one parameter of the HVAC system or of the room unit, or a command to alter at least one parameter of the HVAC system or room unit” (Kirkby ¶ 46) where the user sends a command to adjust the current set point for a temperature of the HVAC system.
Regarding claim 6, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “the controller is configured to query a passcode or pin from the mobile device, and the memory includes information which define the access rights for a mobile device that has provided a specific passcode or pin” (Kirkby ¶ 104) where the user is queried for a password.
Regarding claim 7, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein the controller is configured to alter the access rights stored in the memory of the room unit upon receipt of a corresponding command included in the data sent from the mobile device to the room unit” (Kirkby ¶¶ 46, 67) where a user may make rules that sets (i.e., alter) access rights for certain rooms (Kirkby ¶ 67) and this may be done via a computer remote from the device (Kirkby ¶ 46), which necessarily requires sending a command from the mobile device to the room unit.
Regarding claim 8, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein the connection means is a connector for a bus system” (Kirkby ¶ 75) where the connection means is a USB connector.
Regarding claim 9, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein the room unit further comprises a display configured to display at least a part of the data or at least one parameter of ambient air” (Kirkby ¶ 47) where the smart thermostat is used to control the system. A smart thermostat is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to include a display for controlling parameters of ambient air temperature.
Regarding claim 10, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein the display is a touch-screen or is overlaid by a touch sensitive foil” (Kirkby ¶ 122) where the display is a touch screen.
Regarding claim 11, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses a “method for exchanging data between a mobile device and an HVAC system or a room unit, or vice versa, comprising: a) establishing a short-range wireless communication connection between the mobile device and the room unit according to claim 1” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where a Bluetooth Low Entergy (BLE) link is established. Further, Kirkby discloses “b) thereafter, determining in the room unit whether or not to allow the exchange of the specific data with the mobile device based on the access rights stored in the memory of the room unit” (Kirkby ¶¶ 101-102) where the system only allows the user on to the network, and thus allowed to exchange data with the system, upon verification of the user’s authentication tag (i.e., access rights). Finally, Kirkby discloses “c) relaying data from the HVAC system to the mobile device, and vice versa, by the controller through the connection means and the short range wireless communication module, or transmission of data between the room unit and the mobile device, and vice versa” (Kirkby ¶ 46) where the user sends a command to adjust the current set point for a temperature.
Regarding claim 12, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “wherein said data comprises at least one parameter of the HVAC system or of the room unit or a command to alter at least one parameter of the HVAC system or of the room unit” (Kirkby ¶ 54) where the sensors include temperature sensors (i.e., measures at least one parameter of ambient air).
Regarding claim 16, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses a “method for configuring a room unit as defined in claim 1, comprising: a) writing configuration parameters from the mobile device to a non-volatile memory of the short-range wireless communication module” (Kirkby ¶¶ 73, 75, 123) where the system facilities communication between the interfaces (Kirkby ¶ 73), which may be over short-range communications formats (Kirkby ¶ 75), which necessarily requires storing in some form of memory, and indicating that the memory may be non-volatile memory. (Kirkby ¶ 123). Further, Kirkby discloses “b) reading the configuration parameters from the non-volatile memory, of the short-range wireless communication module by the controller” (Kirkby ¶¶ 73, 75, 123) where the system facilities communication between the interfaces (Kirkby ¶ 73), which may be over short-range communications formats (Kirkby ¶ 75), which necessarily requires storing in some form of memory and then reading from that memory, and indicating that the memory may be non-volatile memory. (Kirkby ¶ 123)
Regarding claim 17, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses a “non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the room unit according to claim 1 to perform the method steps of a) establishing a short-range wireless communication connection between the mobile device and the room unit” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where a Bluetooth Low Entergy (BLE) is established. Further, Kirkby discloses “b) determining in the room unit whether or not to allow the exchange of the specific data with the mobile device based on the access rights stored in the memory of the room unit” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where Bluetooth Low Entergy (BLE) links connect the system to smart phones (i.e., a mobile device). Finally, Kirkby discloses “c) relaying data from the HVAC system to the mobile device, and vice versa, by the controller through the connection means and the short range wireless communication connection or transmission of data between the room unit and the mobile device, and vice versa” (Kirkby ¶ 46) where the user sends a command to adjust the current set point for a temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkby in view of DeLong et al., US Publication 2021/0110623 (hereinafter DeLong).
Regarding claim 14, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “the controller queries a passcode or pin from the mobile device and retrieves information defining the access rights for the mobile device which correspond to the passcode or pin provided by the mobile device” (Kirkby ¶ 104) where the user is queried for a password.
Does not appear to explicitly disclose “the memory of the room unit stores a table associating different access rights to specific passcodes or pins.”
However, DeLong discloses a system and method for controlling the air conditioning (i.e., HVAC system) of a vehicle (DeLong ¶ 11) and using a mobile device (DeLong ¶ 14), wherein “the memory of the HVAC unit stores a table associating different access rights to specific passcodes or pins” (DeLong ¶ 29) where a database (i.e., a table) stores the passwords and their associated access rights.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when DeLong was combined with Kirkby, the room unit of Kirkby would include the HVAC password table of DeLong. Therefore, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the memory of the room unit stores a table associating different access rights to specific passcodes or pins,” rendering it obvious.
Kirkby and DeLong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of HVAC control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kirkby and DeLong before him or her to modify the password management of Kirkby to include the password table of DeLong.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kirkby teaches the “base device” for managing passwords necessary to control an HVAC system. Further, DeLong teaches the “known technique” of storing HVAC password in a table that is applicable to the base device of Kirkby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 15, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “transmitting a command from the mobile device to the room unit, the mobile device having a level of access rights that permits altering of access rights in the memory of the room unit” ” (Kirkby ¶¶ 46, 67) where a user may make rules that sets (i.e., alter) access rights for certain rooms (Kirkby ¶ 67) and this may be done via a computer remote from the device (Kirkby ¶ 46), which necessarily requires transmitting that command from the mobile device to the room unit. Further, Kirkby discloses “receiving said command in the short-range wireless communication module of the room unit and sending said command to the controller of the room unit” (Kirkby ¶¶ 47, 59) where thermostat (i.e., room unit) receives commands (Kirkby ¶ 47) and then describing that server system 164 (i.e., the controller) performs distributed control of the smart devices. (Kirkby ¶ 59). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order for the server system 164 to perform distributed control of the device, the commands would have to be send from the smart device to the server system.
Kirkby does not appear to explicitly disclose “altering the access rights stored in the memory upon reception of said command from the mobile device.”
However, DeLong discloses a system and method for controlling the air conditioning (i.e., HVAC system) of a vehicle (DeLong ¶ 11) and using a mobile device (DeLong ¶ 14), “altering the access rights stored in the memory upon reception of said command from the mobile device” (DeLong ¶ 28) where the process of registering a new password alters the access rights for the registered user.
Kirkby and DeLong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of HVAC control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kirkby and DeLong before him or her to modify the password management of Kirkby to include the password alteration of DeLong.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kirkby teaches the “base device” for managing passwords necessary to control an HVAC system. Further, DeLong teaches the “known technique” of altering HVAC password data that is applicable to the base device of Kirkby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 18, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “at least one passcode or pin is associated with at least one of the access rights” (Kirkby ¶ 104) where the user is queried for a password.
Kirkby does not appear to explicitly disclose “the controller is configured to alter the access rights stored in the memory of the room unit in response to receiving a command included in the data sent from the mobile device to the room unit.”
However, DeLong discloses a system and method for controlling the air conditioning (i.e., HVAC system) of a vehicle (DeLong ¶ 11) and using a mobile device (DeLong ¶ 14), wherein “the controller is configured to alter the access rights stored in the memory of the HVAC unit in response to receiving a command included in the data sent from the mobile device to the HVAC unit” (DeLong ¶ 28) where the process of registering a new password alters the access rights for the registered user.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when DeLong was combined with Kirkby, the room unit of Kirkby would include the HVAC password alteration of DeLong. Therefore, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “the controller is configured to alter the access rights stored in the memory of the room unit in response to receiving a command included in the data sent from the mobile device to the room unit,” rendering it obvious.
Kirkby and DeLong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of HVAC control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kirkby and DeLong before him or her to modify the password management of Kirkby to include the password alteration of DeLong.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kirkby teaches the “base device” for managing passwords necessary to control an HVAC system. Further, DeLong teaches the “known technique” of altering HVAC password data that is applicable to the base device of Kirkby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 19, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “the short-range wireless communication module is a near field communication module or a Bluetooth Low Energy communication module” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where Bluetooth Low Entergy (BLE) links connect the system to smart phones (i.e., a mobile device). Further, Kirkby discloses “the room unit further comprises at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter of ambient air” (Kirkby ¶ 54) where the sensors include temperature sensors (i.e., measures at least one parameter of ambient air). Moreover, Kirkby discloses “the controller is configured to transmit the at least one parameter to the mobile device via the short-range wireless communication module and/or the HVAC system” (Kirkby ¶¶ 31, 65 and Fig. 4) where the data sources, which includes the sensors, are shown to communicate with the data consumer, which includes the HVAC system. Kirkby continues that the communication may be by short-range wireless communication in the form of Bluetooth Low Energy. (Kirby ¶ 31). Finally, Kirkby discloses “said data comprises at least one parameter of the HVAC system or of the room unit or a command to alter at least one parameter of the HVAC system or room unit” (Kirkby ¶ 46) where the user sends a command to adjust the current set point for a temperature.
Kirkby does not appear to explicitly disclose “the connection means is a connector for a field bus system.”
However, DeLong discloses a system and method for controlling the air conditioning (i.e., HVAC system) of a vehicle (DeLong ¶ 11) and using a mobile device (DeLong ¶ 14), wherein “the connection means is a connector for a field bus system” (DeLong ¶ 21) where CAN buses are known to those of ordinary skill to be a type of field bus.
Kirkby and DeLong are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of HVAC control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kirkby and DeLong before him or her to modify the various buses of Kirkby to include the use of a CAN bus of DeLong.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Kirkby differs from the claimed invention by including various other buses in place of the claimed field bus. Further, DeLong teaches that the use of field buses, such as CAN buses, was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the CAN bus of DeLong for any of the other buses of Kirkby because both merely transmit data between devices.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong discloses “the controller is configured to: relay data to and from the HVAC system via the connection means, relay data to and from the mobile device via the short range wireless communication module” (Kirkby ¶ 46) where the user sends a command to adjust the current set point for a temperature. Further, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong discloses “retrieve information defining the access rights for the mobile device that correspond to the passcode or pin provided by the mobile device” (Kirkby ¶ 102) by retrieving a list of networks the electronic device may connect to. Finally, the combination of Kirkby and DeLong discloses “the memory of the room unit stores a table associating different access rights with specific passcodes or pins” (DeLong ¶ 29) where a database (i.e., a table) stores the passwords and their associated access rights.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkby in view of Jenkins et al., US Patent 11,855,991 (hereinafter Jenkins).
Regarding claim 21, Kirkby discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kirkby discloses “user level access rights that permit the exchange of the specific data that is less than all data” (Kirkby ¶ 96) by describing user accounts that are limited to only a subset of the electronic devices.
Kirkby does not appear to explicitly disclose “administrator level access rights that permit the exchange of all data.”
However, Jenkins discloses a smart home management system including a series of access rights “wherein the access rights comprise at least: administrator level access rights that permit the exchange of all data” (Jenkins col. 15, l. 59-col. 16, l. 19) where the administrator may have full control of the automation system. Additionally, Jenkins discloses “user level access rights that permit the exchange of the specific data that is less than all data” (Jenkins col. 6, ll. 33-59) where residents may have different levels of access control than administrators, meaning that it would be less than all the data.
Kirkby and Jenkins are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of smart home systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kirkby and Jenkins before him or her to modify the smart home user accounts of Kirkby to include the specific user account privileges of Jenkins.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Kirkby teaches the “base device” including a smart home system with user access accounts. Further, Jenkins teaches the “known technique” of including administrator access accounts in a smart home system that has full access that is applicable to the base device of Kirkby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kirkby and Jenkins discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kirkby and Jenkins “the short-range wireless communication module has a range up to 30 meters” (Kirkby ¶ 31) where the short-range wireless communication module is Bluetooth Low Energy, which is known to have a range of 10-30 meters.1 Further, the combination of Kirkby and Jenkins discloses “the specific data includes a … room temperature” (Kirkby ¶ 46) by giving an example of the current set point temperature sent between the device and the client device. Moreover, the combination of Kirkby and Jenkins discloses “the specific data includes a current, measured room temperature” (Jenkins col. 13, ll. 22-42, see also Jenkins col. 15, ll. 50-58) by giving examples of the user receiving specific data including the current, measured room temperature. Finally, the combination of Kirkby and Jenkins discloses “the specific data is directly communicated between the short-range wireless communication module and the mobile device” (Kirkby) where data is communicated directly between the short-range wireless communication module on the electronic device and/or the server to the client device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 9) and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to claim 3, Applicant argues that in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 888 (Fed. Cir. 2004, “the Federal Circuit held that the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ of a limitation having the form of at least one of A, B, and C is at least on A, at least one B, and at least one C.” (Remarks 9). Applicant continues that “PTAB has on at least two occasions interpreted, in decisions subsequent to Ex Parte Gross, such limitations in the same manner [as in SuperGuide].” (Remarks 9).
Although the Federal Circuit held in SuperGuide that the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least one of A, B, and C is at least on A, at least one B, and at least one C,” this was not a blanket ruling. The Federal Circuit explicitly stated that this may rebutted based on the specification. (SuperGuide at 887). In the present instance, the Specification clearly gives examples of the parameter being sent to just the mobile device (Spec. ¶ 17) and to just the HVAC system. (Spec.¶ 20).
Further, both of the decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board explicitly applied the narrower interpretation used in SuperGuide due to the same lack of additional evidence in the specification.
Finally, if Applicant continues to be concerned about the possible future interpretation, Applicant is invited to replace “and” or “and/or” with “or.”
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for including the trademark Bluetooth in the claim, Applicant first argues that the term is not being used as a trademark but “as a reference to an international standard.” (Remarks 10). Applicant continues that “a search of the USPTO patent database on January 26, 2026 for the term ‘Bluetooth’ resulted in a finding of 26,391 granted patents” and “because the Office routing grants patents containing ‘Bluetooth’ in the claims” the rejection should be withdrawn. The examiner disagrees.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the term is not being used as a trademark but to reference a technical standard, this creates further issues of indefiniteness because standards are subject to revision and change and a person of ordinary skill would, therefore, not know what the metes and bounds of the term were in light of multiple potential standards. Moreover, the existing case law does not appear to make an exception for “international standard[s]” when a trademark or tradename used to identify a particular product is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(u). Here, the term is being used to identify particular short-range wireless communication modules.
Second, regarding Applicant’s assertion that 26,391 patents have been granted with the term “Bluetooth,” Applicant is remined that “[e]ach claim (i.e., each ‘invention’), therefore, must be evaluated on its own merits for compliance with all statutory requirements.” See MPEP § 2107.02. Further, the examiner is prohibited from discussing the validity or patentability of other cases. See MPEP § 1701.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, which now incorporates the content of previous claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that the rejection’s interpterion of the term “access rights” is not reasonable because “paragraph [0027] of the present application explains how the term ‘access rights’ should be interpreted, in particular as requiring at least two levels of permission respectively granted to different users.” (Remarks 10-11). Applicant continues by providing definitions for the term “access rights” from Science Direct and PCMAg’s Encyclopedia. (Remarks 11). Applicant continues that “the password entry on the mobile device [of Kirkby] does not concern any access authorization for an exchange of data between the device and the mobile device” and “is solely used by the device in order to access the secured network in the house, i.e. there is no exchange of any additional data between the device and the mobile device, let alone an exchange of data based on any access rights stored in a memory of the device.” (Remarks 12). Applicant then states “after the provisioning step has been completed, subsequent communication between the device and the mobile phone will be performed via Wi-Fi.” (Remarks 12). Finally, Applicant concludes that “there is no teaching in Kirkby that any access rights are requested during data exchange between the device and the mobile device and the any access rights … are stored in the memory of the device (room unit).” (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s reliance on ¶ 27 of the present specification as a limiting definition of “access rights” is misplaced as the specification explicitly states that this is merely “[p]referabl[e]” and, thus, non-limiting. Additionally, Applicant’s reliance on the cited webpages is also misplaced because broadest reasonable interpretation must be determined based on the time “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” See MPEP § 2111.01. Here, Applicant has provided no evidence that these quotations established the plaining and ordinary meaning prior to the effective filing date.
Further, Applicant’s statement that “there is no exchange of any additional data between the device and the mobile device, let alone an exchange of data based on any access rights stored in a memory of the device” is plainly false. First, claim 1 does not actually require “exchange of any additional data between the device and the mobile device,” but only that such an exchange would be allowed or denied. Second, As established in the rejection of other claims, such as claim 4, Kirkby clearly allows for “a user may communicate with a device using a computer (e.g., a desktop computer, laptop computer, or tablet) or other portable electronic device (e.g., a smartphone),” and thus clearly exchanges additional data between the device and the mobile device. (Kirkby ¶ 46).
Kirkby continues that “the client device 604 further sends (722) the authentication tag to the electronic device 602.” (Kirkby ¶ 101). Thus, the authentication tag is clearly “in a memory of the device,” as claimed. It should be noted that the claim does not require the access rights to be stored in a memory of the room unit at any specific point in time. This “authentication tag” is a form of access rights because it grants or denies access of the mobile device to the electronic device, which is well within the reasonable interpretation of the term.2
Moreover, regarding Applicant’s arguments that “after the provisioning step has been completed, subsequent communication between the device and the mobile phone will be performed via Wi-Fi” and “there is no teaching in Kirkby that any access rights are requested during data exchange between the device and the mobile device and the any access rights … are stored in the memory of the device (room unit),” these arguments are not responsive to the rejection because neither of these are required by the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “any modification to Kirkby to include access rights would have necessary changed the principle of operation of Kirkby.” (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is based on an erroneous premise—namely that any such modifications would be required. As has been discussed above, no modification are necessary. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues that DeLong does not disclose the claimed features. (Remarks 13). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because DeLong was not proffered for these limitations.
Finally, Applicant argues that “Kirkby discloses a system in which access rights to a home network are stored and managed centrally on the server” but “independent claim 1 uses a decentralized access rights management system.” (Remarks 13). The examiner disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, claim 1 does not, in fact, “use a decentralized access rights management system.” Instead claim 1 requires an HVAC system, a connection means to connect a room to the HVAC system, a controller, a short range wireless communication module to connect a mobile device and the room unit, where the controller, the location of which is not specified, allows the exchange of data between the room unit and access rights stored in the memory of the room unit. (Claim 1). Nothing here requires these functions to be performed solely at the room unit or prohibits the functions to be performed at a centralized server. Instead, access rights must merely be “stored in a room unit,” which Kirkby discloses for the reasons discussed above.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 Bluetooth Low Energy - Part 1: Introduction To BLE, March 25, 2026, mikroe.com, Page 2.
2 “access privileges,” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 2002, Microsoft Press, Fifth Edition, Page 14.