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. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. 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;
receive, from the thermostat, a response indicating that he HVAC system has been shut down
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 of 15cm to 25cm;
in response to determining that the distance is outside the distance range, instruct the user to change the distance from the indoor unit, and
in response to determining that the distance is within the distance range, capture, using a microphone of the user device, baseline sound data for a first time period of 10 seconds whole the HVAC system is shut down;
send a second instruction to the thermostat to turn on the HVAC system;
receive, from the thermostat a response indicating that the HVAC system has been turned on;
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 using the microphone of the user device, indoor unit sound data for a second time period of 60 seconds while the HVAC system operates according to the temperature setpoint; 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 acoustic waveform sound signatures;
determine component identifiers of components of the indoor unit and identify from the sound signature library, expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to the component identifiers;
compare the normalized indoor unit sound data to the expected acoustic waveform sound signatures;
in response to determining that an expected acoustic waveform sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed; and
send to the user device for display, a first notification identifying the blower as a failed component of the indoor unit.
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; receive, from the thermostat, a response indicating that he HVAC system has been shut down 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 of 15cm to 25cm; in response to determining that the distance is outside the distance range, instruct the user to change the distance from the indoor unit, and send a second instruction to the thermostat to turn on the HVAC system; receive, from the thermostat a response indicating that the HVAC system has been turned on; 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; and 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 acoustic waveform sound signatures; determine component identifiers of components of the indoor unit and identify from the sound signature library, expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to the component identifiers; compare the normalized indoor unit sound data to the expected acoustic waveform sound signatures; in response to determining that an expected acoustic waveform sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed;”,
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, using a microphone of the user device, baseline sound data for a first time period of 10 seconds whole the HVAC system is shut down; capture using the microphone of the user device, indoor unit sound data for a second time period of 60 seconds while the HVAC system operates according to the temperature setpoint. (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). It is merely displayed which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instance applicant argues that:
In this instance applicant argues "receive, from the thermostat, a response indicating that the HVAC system has been turned on." These elements are not mental observations. They involve device-to-device communication with the thermostat to verify physical operating states of the HVAC system. A person thinking about an HVAC system cannot mentally receive a thermostat response indicating that the HVAC system has been shut down or turned on. These elements therefore confirm that the claimed diagnostic process is tied to controlled operation of physical HVAC equipment.
When a user goes to a thermostat and turns it on, there is usually some sort of response indicating that the HVAC has been turned on. The claim limitations do not provide anything significantly more than the components that are performing there known functions. Much like a user turning on the TV or any other device. While the components are physical elements process of turning on the device based on their known function is a mental process. In this instance, the mental process is the user actually performing the action of turning on the HVAC .
Second, the amended claims recite elements that objectively control the position from which acoustic data is captured. Claim l recites "compare the distance to a distance range of 15 cm to 25 cm" and "in response to determining that the distance is outside the distance range, instruct the user to change the distance from the indoor unit." These elements do more than ask whether a person can estimate a distance from an image. The claim involves an image-based distance determination followed by comparison to a specified range and a system-generated instruction when that range is not satisfied. The position-control elements are part of the technical process because they standardize the acoustic-data capture conditions for subsequent waveform processing.
Again, these elements are just performing their known function of image analysis and are required to be a certain distance from the nameplate. This is similar to electronic depositing of a check, where the image must be a certain distance away in order to get an accurate read on the check. While it is acceptable to include these elements they do not provide anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The main concept of the invention is not directed at a thermostat, audio processing or image processing, but rather to HVAC blower diagnosis which uses the said processing. These additional elements are used to perform the diagnosis but are not directed to the main concept of the invention or provide anything significantly more to the abstract idea.
Third, the amended claims recite elements involving controlled acquisition of sound data using a device microphone under particular HVAC operating states. Claim 1 recites "capture, using a microphone of the user device, baseline sound data for a first time period of 10 seconds while the HVAC system is shut down" and "capture, using the microphone of the user device, indoor unit sound data for a second time period of 60 seconds while the HVAC system operates according to the temperature setpoint." These elements cannot reasonably be reduced to a person listening for an unusual noise. They involve microphone-based acquisition of sound data during defined time periods and under defined HVAC operating conditions.
A microphone is an additional element that is used to perform the diagnosis but is not directed to the main concept of the invention or provide anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The microphone is used to perform the known functions of a microphone and that data received or gathered from the microphone is used in the analysis of the HVAC blower.
Fourth, the amended claims recite acoustic waveform processing elements that are not practically performed in the human mind. Claim l recites "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 acoustic waveform sound signatures," and "compare the normalized indoor unit sound data to the expected acoustic waveform sound signatures." These elements involve processing of sound data as acoustic waveform data, not subjective auditory judgment. The Office Action states that a user can listen to an HVAC system and determine whether it makes an unconventional sound. But the amended claims do not recite merely listening for an unconventional sound. They recite generating normalized indoor unit sound data and analyzing that normalized data to determine acoustic waveform sound signatures.
Using sensors, microphones, and other data acquisition devices performing their known function, the sound signature analysis may be done using mental process.
Fifth, the amended claims recite a library-based component-identification framework. Claim 1 recites "determine component identifiers of components of the indoor unit and identify, from a sound signature library, expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to the component identifiers." This element is not a mental comparison of one sound to another. It requires expected acoustic waveform sound signatures to be identified from a sound signature library based on component identifiers of components of the indoor unit. This further distinguishes the amended claims from the Office Action's characterization of the claims as merely involving human listening or mental comparison.
Using sensors, microphones, and other data acquisition devices performing their known function the sound signature analysis may be done using mental process. The comparison of the waveforms may be done on paper using mental process by acquiring a snapshot of a known waveform and comparing it to the acquired waveform.
The Office Action asserts that the claim elements merely use computer technology as a tool to apply an abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims now make explicit that the user device, thermostat, HVAC system, microphone, and computing system are not merely generic computer components recited as a field of use. They are arranged to perform a specific HVAC diagnostic process.
It is unclear what particular arrangement applicant is referring to. The case law which Examiner believes applicant is referring to where the claim limitations were found eligible was due to the particular arrangement of sensors i.e. in a specific an arrangement of sensors that provided unexpected results. In this situation the generic claim elements including the microphone, thermostat etc. are performing their known functions. The order in which they are performed is a logical order based on the concept of the claim.
The thermostat-response elements are significant to this practical application. Claim 1 recites "receive, from the thermostat, a response indicating that the HVAC system has been shut down" before baseline sound data is captured, and recites "receive, from the thermostat, a response indicating that the HVAC system has been turned on" before operating sound data is captured. These elements tie the sound-data acquisition to confirmed physical operating states of the HVAC system. The resulting acoustic data is therefore not arbitrary data gathered for later abstract analysis; it is captured under controlled HVAC conditions created and verified through thermostat communications.
It is unclear why the timing of the data capture would change the 101 analysis. It is presumed that the HVAC would need to be on in order to capture sound data from the units. The claims are still directed to data gathering/ analysis and therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The amended claims also recite use of particular physical devices in a particular way. MPEP § 2106.05(b) identifies use of a particular machine as a consideration relevant to eligibility. Here, the claimed thermostat, HVAC system, user-device microphone, and computing system are not recited merely as a field of use. The claims recite the thermostat and HVAC system as being used to establish verified physical operating states, and the user-device microphone as being used to capture particular acoustic data under those verified states.
It is unclear what particular arrangement applicant is referring to. The case law which Examiner believes applicant is referring to where the claim limitations were found eligible was due to the particular arrangement of sensors i.e. in a specific arrangement that provided unexpected results. In this situation the generic claim elements including the microphone, thermostat etc. are performing their known functions.
The distance-control elements further integrate the claimed process into a practical application. Claim 1 recites "compare the distance to a distance range of 15 cm to 25 cm" and "in response to determining that the distance is outside the distance range, instruct the user to change the distance from the indoor unit." These elements impose a meaningful technical constraint on acoustic-data acquisition. The distance-control elements help ensure that the subsequent sound data is captured from a controlled range relative to the indoor unit, thereby supporting reliable acoustic waveform analysis.
The step is directed to data gathering and it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the closer you are to the sound that is being captured the more accurate the capture will be. While there is a claimed technical constraint, it is unclear why that would be significantly more than the abstract idea as it is constraining a data gathering step which is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
The sound-capture elements are not insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP @ 2106.05(g) addresses "Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity," but the amended sound-capture elements are not merely nominal pre-solution data gathering. Claim 1 recites "capture, using a microphone of the user device, baseline sound data for a first time period of 10 seconds while the HVAC system is shut down" and "capture, using the microphone of the user device, indoor unit sound data for a second time period of 60 seconds while the HVAC system operates according to the temperature setpoint." These elements generate the sound data used in the claimed normalization and acoustic waveform analysis and therefore are integral to the practical HVAC diagnostic application.
While it is acknowledged that the data is captured at a specific time period, the step is still directed to data gathering and that data is later analyzed. Therefore, this step is still considered "Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”.
Likewise, the amended acoustic waveform and sound-library elements demonstrate a particular technical implementation. Claim 1 recites "analyze the normalized indoor unit sound data to determine acoustic waveform sound signatures" and "determine component identifiers of components of the indoor unit and identify, from a sound signature library, expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to the component identifiers." These elements are directed to acoustic waveform analysis of HVAC equipment using expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to component identifiers. This is a practical application in HVAC diagnostics, not a mere abstract comparison.
This step is directed to data analysis as stated by applicant these elements are directed to acoustic waveform analysis.
The amended output element also addresses the Office Action's statement that "nothing is done with the output (notification)." Claim 1 now recites "send, to the user device for display, a first notification identifying the blower as a failed component of the indoor unit." This element is not a generic output of an abstract result. It is a component-specific diagnostic output identifying a failed physical component of the indoor unit. The output is therefore tied to the technological purpose of the claimed process: diagnosing a physical HVAC indoor unit based on normalized acoustic waveform data.
Under MPEP § 2106 [2106], displaying information or data on a screen is typically treated as a conventional activity or insignificant extra-solution activity unless it is tied to non-conventional improvements in the technology. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
USPTO subject matter eligibility examples are not binding law, but the USPTO identifies them as teaching tools illustrating how the Office applies its eligibility guidance in fact-specific situations. Applicant recognizes the Office Action's view that the claims are not identical to USPTO Example 47. Applicant does not rely on Example 47 as controlling. Rather, Example 47 is instructive because the USPTO's analysis recognizes that claims directed to detecting anomalies using particular technological processing can be patent eligible where the claim recites a specific technological implementation rather than merely an abstract evaluation. Here, the amended claims similarly recite particular technological elements for detecting a failed HVAC component, including "analyze the normalized indoor unit sound data to determine acoustic waveform sound signatures," "determine component identifiers of components of the indoor unit and identify, from a sound signature library, expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to the component identifiers," and "in response to determining that an expected acoustic waveform sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed."
As the claims are not analogous, it is unclear what relief applicant is seeking with this argument.
To the extent the Office Action maintains that the amended ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant respectfully submits that the record should specifically address the ordered combination actually claimed, not merely isolated activities such as generic data transmission.
The order of the analysis is the logical order that the claimed procedure could be done. For instance, the analysis cannot be performed before the data is gathered and it is known which particular HVAC model is being analyzed. The distance to get a clear analysis would need to be relatively close to the unit. Image analysis and sound capture would be clearer, more accurate the closer the user is to the unit. While applicant has incorporated additional constraints into the claims these constraints are directed to the data gathering portion of the claim. Also, it is unclear why that particular range is novel.
The amended claims also provide a component-specific diagnostic result. Claim 1 recites "in response to determining that an expected acoustic waveform sound signature for a blower is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data, determine that the blower has failed" and "send, to the user device for display, a first notification identifying the blower as a failed component of the indoor unit." These elements provide significantly more than merely displaying data or an abstract result. They identify failure of a physical HVAC component using normalized acoustic waveform data and expected acoustic waveform sound signatures corresponding to component identifiers.
The identification and displaying of a failure is not sufficient to be a real-world application that is significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, if applicant were to amend to include actually repairing or replacing the blower in response to the blower failure determination that would be considered significantly more.
For example, Claim 2 recites "in response to determining that the expected acoustic waveform sound signature for the blower is different from a respective acoustic waveform sound signature of the blower determined from the normalized indoor unit sound data," followed by "determine that the blower is malfunctioning." Claim 6 recites "in response to determining that an expected acoustic waveform sound signature for a supplemental heat relay is missing from the normalized indoor unit sound data," followed by "determine that the supplemental heat relay has failed." These additional elements further support the patent eligibility of the dependent claims.
With regards to claims 2 and 6, the claims do not add anything significantly more as they merely make a determination and nothing more. Something would need to be done with that determination in order for it to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the reasons above, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights