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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim s 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The parent applicant has no support for the test protocol operation being "different" from user controlled operation; this limitation first appeared in the claims of the present application. The specification appears to have no examples or discussion which would provide support for this newly recited feature. Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 depend from rejected claims 1, 9, and 16 and therefore are also rejected. Claim 4 is further not supported by the Specification. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that the test protocol "involves operation of the HVAC system differently from user c ontrolled operation". This is indefinite, since there is no guidance in the specification or claim as to what the " user controlled operation" can be, so it will not be clear when the operation of the test protocol will be "different". (Grammatically, the word "different" would be preferable to "differently" in the claim language.) For instance, users of HVAC systems do not usually intend to perform stress tests; would merely perform ing a stress test as part of a testing protocol be considered a "different" operation? Does the protocol have to be something that would be impossible for the user to carry out, or just not a common operation? The examiner presumes for purposes of examination that a stress test would be a different operation, and that it is not required that the user be unable to carry out the test protocol operation, but is not sure what the intent of the A pplicant is. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear. Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 depend from rejected claims 1, 9, and 16 and therefore are also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-20 are eligible. Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite limitations when viewed as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claims when viewed as a whole are directed to an improvement to other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05a). In the instant Applications, the claims as a whole are directed to overcome problems exist in HVAC system (see Specification: Background, Paragraphs. 8, 9, 24-26) to provide advantages such as problematic HVAC units may be identified based on the average performance of the other HVAC units in the given statistical group. In some embodiments, problematic HVAC units may be identified based on an absolute performance measurement without regard to the performance average of the other associated HVAC units (see Specification, Par. 50) and when an HVAC system cannot be remotely accessed, the HVAC system maybe identified as a non-functioning system and scheduled for service (Specification: Par. 30 discloses test library contains the details of multiple potential diagnostic protocols that may be run using a given HVAC system. In some embodiments, one or more of the test protocols leverage the existing capabilities of a smart thermostat such as, for example, the ability to remotely command an HVAC system to run. In this general test, if an HVAC system cannot be remotely accessed, the HVAC system may be identified as a non-functioning system and scheduled for service ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 -20 , as best understood , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2014144446 (hereinafter “A”) . Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, A discloses a system for monitoring and testing a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system operable to condition air an inside of a structure, the system comprising: a test engine (monitoring system and server) remote from and connectable with the HVAC, wherein the test engine is configured to: provide test protocol instructions usable to implement a test protocol by the HVAC system that involves operation of the HVAC system differently from user controlled operation (Pars. 22-26, 149, 187, 188: monitoring system and server may store baselines of frequency data for the HVAC system of a building and that an algorithm may be used to refine frequency signatures which may be unique to different types of HVAC. The monitoring server executes various algorithms to identify problems, such as failures or decreased efficiency, and to predict impending results. Hence the monitoring system and the server equates the claimed “test engine” that is in data communication with the HVAC and the algorithm which is used to refine frequency signatures that are unique to the HVAC system equates the claimed “test protocols instructions” which in the Examiner’s position “unique” or in other words “(different) from user controlled operations” ) ; and receive test results from implementation of the test protocol by the HVAC system wherein the system is configured to determine an operational characteristic of or diagnose an issue with the HVAC system based on the test results ( Pars. 22-26, 149, 187, 188: monitoring system and server may store baselines of frequency data for the HVAC system of a building and that an algorithm may be used to refine frequency signatures which may be unique to different types of HVAC. The monitoring server executes various algorithms to identify problems, such as failures or decreased efficiency, and to predict impending results). Regarding claim s 2, 10, and 17, A discloses wherein the test engine is configured to provide the test protocol instructions based on at least one criterion ( The current and/or the derivative of this current ) other than ambient temperature inside the structure or user control of the HVAC system ( As shown above in claim 1, at Pars. 22-26, 149, 187, 188, monitoring system and server may store baselines of frequency data for the HVAC system of a building and that an algorithm may be used to refine frequency signatures which may be unique to different types of HVAC. The monitoring server executes various algorithms to identify problems, such as failures or decreased efficiency, and to predict impending results. Further, A discloses at Par. 189 , The monitoring system may also receive current data in each frame. F or example, when 7.5 frames per seconds are received, current data having a 7.5 Hz resolution is available. The current and/or the derivative of this current may be analyzed to detect impending or existing failures . In addition, the current and/or the derivative may be used to determine when to monitor certain data, or points at which to analyze obtained data. For example, frequency data obtained at a predetermined window around a certain current event may be found to correspond to a particular HVAC system component . This meets the claimed “the test engine is configured to provide the test protocol instructions based on at least one criterion other than ambient temperature inside the structure or user control of the HVAC system”). Regarding claim s 3, 11, and 18, A discloses wherein the criterion includes at least one of a length of time since a previous test protocol was implemented, time of year, geographical area of the structure, time of day, or control by a service provider remotely located from the structure ( Par. 224: duty cycle, and determining whether the installed equipment is oversized for the building or based on the event and daily accumulation files ). Regarding claims 4, A discloses wherein the test protocol instructions include an option to not implement the test protocol if the user is present within the structure (Pars. 61-63: The aggregate current data may be processed using frequency domain analysis, statistical analysis, and state machine analysis to determine operation of individual components based on the aggregate current data. This processing may happen partially or entirely in a server environment, remote from the customer's building or residence , hence meets the claimed “not present in the structure”). Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, A discloses a test library in data communication with the test engine and comprising multiple test protocols that may be used by the test engine to provide to the HVAC system ( Par. 212: reference cases and errors . Processing module 1400 evaluate different things usch as igniter positive temperature coefficient et…The module compares the current data to baseline such as igniter profile baseline shown in Par. 260, these baseline s are stored in a database equates “library” which is communicated with monitoring s erver, i.e. the “test engine” (see Fig. 5C, or front page of the reference). Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, A discloses a client asset database in data communication with the test engine and configured to store information related to the HVAC system (see Par. 155 for customer portal 688 in communication with the monitoring server). Regarding claim 7 and 14, A discloses a decision support system in data communication with the test engine and configured to at least one of determine the operational characteristic of the HVAC system, diagnose the issue with the HVAC system, or determine a service recommendation for the HVAC system based on the test results, wherein the decision support system is trainable using machine learning (Pars. 150 and 151: The monitoring server 664 may notify a review server 668 when a problem is identified or a fault is predicted. This programmatic assessment may be referred to as an advisory. Some or all advisories may be triaged by a technician to reduce false positives and potentially supplement or modify data corresponding to the advisory. For example, a technician device 672 operated by a technician is used to review the advisory and to monitor data (in various implementations, in real-time) from the air handler monitor module 600 via the monitoring server 664. The technician using the technician device 672 reviews the advisory. If the technician determines that the problem or fault is either already present or impending, the technician instructs the review server 668 to send an alert to either or both of a contractor device 676 or a customer device 680. The technician may be determine d that, although a problem or fault is present, the cause is more likely to be something different than specified by the automated advisory. The technician can therefore issue a different alert or modify the advisory before issuing an alert based on the advisory ). Regarding claims 8 and 15, A discloses a service platform in data communication with the decision support system and configured to receive a service recommendation from the decision support system and schedule a servicing of the HVAC system (Par. 191: notifications of the HVAC problems may take the form of push or pull updates to an applicaiotn , which may be executed on a smart phone or other mobile device or a standart computer. They can be viewed using web applications or on a local display such as thermostats or other displays located throughout or on the air handler monitor module 322 which all are in data communication with the monitoring server of the monitoring system. See configuration in Fig. 5C ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2718 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Andrew M Schechter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2302 . 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. /PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 21, 2026