DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. No priority has been claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2023 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 4/12/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
6. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
7. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/309,150. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The difference being that one application analyzes indoor unit of a HVAC system and the other analyzing the outdoor unit. Both specification discuss analyzing both indoor and outdoor units. Further, the same process is used in the analysis and as disclosed by applicant both have an indoor and outdoor component. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to diagnoses either an indoor or outdoor components of the HVAC system using the claimed process.
9. Claim1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,835. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are obvious variations of each other. The difference being that one application analyzes indoor unit of a HVAC system and the other analyzing the outdoor unit. Both specification discuss analyzing both indoor and outdoor units. Further, the same process is used in the analysis and as disclosed by applicant both have an indoor and outdoor component. Therefore it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to diagnoses either an indoor or outdoor components of the HVAC system using the claimed process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
10. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
1. A system comprising:
a thermostat communicatively coupled to a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system;
a user device communicatively coupled to the thermostat, wherein the user device comprises a first processor configured to:
send a first instruction to the thermostat to shut down the HVAC system;
instruct a user to minimize background noise;
instruct the user to go to an indoor unit of the HVAC system;
instruct the user to capture an image of a nameplate of the indoor unit;
analyze the image to determine a distance of the user from the indoor unit;
compare the distance to a distance range;
in response to determining that the distance is within the distance range, capture baseline sound data for a first time period;
send a second instruction to the thermostat to turn on the HVAC system;
determine a value of a room temperature;
send a third instruction to the thermostat to set a temperature setpoint below or above the value of the room temperature;
capture indoor unit sound data for a second time period; and
send the indoor unit sound data and the baseline sound data to a computing system; and
the computing system communicatively coupled to the user device, wherein the computing system comprises a second processor configured to:
subtract the baseline sound data from the indoor unit sound data to determine normalized indoor unit sound data;
analyze the normalized indoor unit sound data to determine sound signatures;
identify expected sound signatures of the indoor unit;
compare the normalized indoor unit sound data to the expected sound signatures;
in response to determining that an expected sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed; and
send a first notification to the user device that the blower has failed.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a process claim and claim 15 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process and/or mathematical concept. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “send a first instruction to the thermostat to shut down the HVAC system; instruct a user to minimize background noise; instruct the user to go to an indoor unit of the HVAC system; instruct the user to capture an image of a nameplate of the indoor unit; analyze the image to determine a distance of the user from the indoor unit; compare the distance to a distance range; send a second instruction to the thermostat to turn on the HVAC system; determine a value of a room temperature; send a third instruction to the thermostat to set a temperature setpoint below or above the value of the room temperature; send the indoor unit sound data and the baseline sound data to a computing system; subtract the baseline sound data from the indoor unit sound data to determine normalized indoor unit sound data; analyze the normalized indoor unit sound data to determine sound signatures; identify expected sound signatures of the indoor unit; compare the normalized indoor unit sound data to the expected sound signatures; in response to determining that an expected sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including: capture baseline sound data for a first time period; capture indoor unit sound data for a second time period; send a first notification to the user device that the blower has failed. (claims 1, 8, and 15) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “a thermostat communicatively coupled to a (HVAC) system; a user device communicatively coupled to the thermostat and a processor” (claims 1, 8, and 15) however the “thermostat”, user device and processor are recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [pages 9, and 12-13] describing a variety of different types of “processors”, “user devices” and “thermostats” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the output (notification).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simpkins et al. US PUB # 2025/0110022 teaches a apparatus and method for multsensor home monitoring and maintenance.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 10, 2026