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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06/17/2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 06/17/2024 are considered acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12-13 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 and 12, the variable "n3" in "define possible data frames having said possible numerical value n3, associated with a possible command" appears to be visually distorted. In claims 1 and 12-13, the formula for calculating a value of a possible parameter uses uppercase to represent “v1”, “v2”, and “v3” instead of lowercase. In claim 13, the variables “n1”, “v1”, “n2”, “v2”, and “n3” are represented without subscript, as opposed to seen in claims 1 and 12 and in the formula in claim 13 itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
"at least one processing logic configured to" and "wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to:" in claim 1
“further comprising a user device connected to the first remote controller and configured to provide, upon an input from the user, instructions to the first remote controller to send to the AC system one of said defined commands” in claim 3
“wherein the user device is further configured, during the training phase” in claim 4
“wherein said at least one processing logic is configured, during said training phase, when receiving a data frame that belongs to a protocol found in the database, to define a set of possible data frames corresponding respectively to a set of possible commands of the AC system defined by said protocol found in the database.” In claim 7
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured to define the set of possible data frames as a set of all possible combinations of all possible values of the parameters” in claim 9
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to:” in claim 12
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to:” in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “possible commands”, “possible value”, “possible parameter”, “possible data frames”, and “possible numerical value”. However, the term “possible” is not defined in the claims or specification. As a result, it is not known with certainty what the term “possible” entails or what the metes and bounds of “possible” encompass. The “possible commands”, “possible parameter”, “possible data frames”, and “possible numerical value” will be interpreted as anything that can serve as a command, parameter, data frame, or numerical value.
Regarding claim 12, the claim also recites “possible data frames”, “possible commands”, “possible parameter”, and “possible numerical value”. Similarly to claim 1, it is not known with certainty what the term “possible” entails or what the metes and bounds of “possible” encompass. The “possible commands”, “possible parameter”, “possible data frames”, and “possible numerical value” will be interpreted as anything that can serve as a command, parameter, data frame, or numerical value.
Regarding claim 12,the claim recites the limitation "the at least one processing logic" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim also recites “possible data frames”, “possible commands”, “possible parameter”, and “possible numerical value”. Similarly to claims 1 and 12, it is not known with certainty what the term “possible” entails or what the metes and bounds of “possible” encompass. The “possible commands”, “possible parameter”, “possible data frames”, and “possible numerical value” will be interpreted as anything that can serve as a command, parameter, data frame, or numerical value. Additionally, Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one processing logic" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim also recites “possible data frames” and “possible commands”.
Regarding claim 8, the claim also recites “possible parameter”.
Regarding claim 9, the claim also recites “possible data frames” and “all possible combinations of all possible values of the parameters”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 and 13 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture. Claim 12 is directed to a method.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea, Specifically:
“at least one processing logic configured to: infer, during said training phase, from said plurality of data frames corresponding to said plurality of defined commands of the AC system, the set of possible data frames corresponding respectively to the complete set of possible commands of the AC system defining a protocol of communication with the AC system”
”for each possible numerical value n3 between the first numerical value and the second numerical value, define possible data frames having possible numerical value n3 associated with a possible command having a value of possible parameter equal to: v3 = v1 + (n3-n1)/(n2-n1) * (v2-v1)”
The limitation of inferring a plurality of data frames corresponding to possible commands can be reasonably performed with the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of defining possible numerical values recites a mathematical formula and thus falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
“A system comprising: A first remote controller comprising: at least one emitter of electromagnetic waves”
“at least one receiver of electromagnetic waves configured, during a training phase, to receive, from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system forming a subset of the possible commands;”
“each said data frame comprising a payload section, comprising, in a defined order, values of a set of parameters of operations of the AC system;”
“wherein the plurality of defined commands comprises at least one possible command for each possible value of a possible parameter corresponding to a respective mode of operation of the AC system;”
“wherein the plurality of defined commands comprises at least two possible commands representing respective different numerical values of a possible parameter exhibiting numerical values;”
“use, during an operating phase, said at least one emitter to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”
“and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”
The limitation of the remote controller comprising an emitter of electromagnetic waves is a generic system and thus fall under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of receiving electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames, each data frame comprising a payload section, wherein the plurality of defined commands comprising at least one possible command for each possible value of a possible parameter and at least two possible commands representing respective different numerical values of a possible parameter exhibiting numerical values, wherein the processing logic is configured to obtain a first and second numerical values from data frames, and wherein the first or second value is a minimum or maximum value fall under mere data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation of using at least one emitter to send electromagnetic waves to the AC system falls under post-solution activity and is also thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of a remote controller comprising an emitter and a receiver of electromagnetic waves, receiving data frames comprising a payload section, the defined commands comprising at least one possible command for each possible value of a possible parameter and at least two possible commands representing respective different numerical values of a possible parameter, transmitting data as electromagnetic waves, and obtaining numerical values from data frames where one of the values is a minimum or maximum represent functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner within the industry.
With regards to “A system comprising: A first remote controller comprising: at least one emitter of electromagnetic waves”, US 20080174467 A1 to Drimusz et al. (herein “Drimusz”) describes “One popular type of remote control is an infrared (IR) remote control. Selecting an indicator on an IR remote control causes the remote control to radiate IR radiation in a characteristic pattern.” (Paragraph 21). Universal infrared adapter for air conditioners by Adeline Mercier (herein “Mercier”) describes “This thesis explores how a phone app and an infrared remote control can be used at the same time in order to control air conditioners.” (abstract)
With regards to “at least one receiver of electromagnetic waves configured, during a training phase, to receive, from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system forming a subset of the possible commands;”, Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “Once the position is known, the user decreases the temperature degree by degree in order to record the value(s) of this/these specific byte(s) for each temperature. This method is showed on the figure 9 This procedure is used for all the different settings of the air conditioner: fan position, modes, fan speed, timer... When the common settings have been recorded, the program asks if other settings have to be recorded. In the database, 5 more tables have been created in order to allow additional settings” (page 20).
With regards to “each said data frame comprising a payload section, comprising, in a defined order, values of a set of parameters of operations of the AC system;”, Drimusz describes “The IR transmission of FIG. 9A has a leader portion 212, a data portion 214, and an inter-code gap 216 and “The successive transmissions of the data portion 214 (which, after the initial data transmission may or may not include the leader portion 212), serves at least two purposes. If an indicator is held down the command may be repeated. For example, if the indicator is the "Volume Up" indicator, the device may continue to increase the volume until the indicator is no longer activated” (Paragraph 44) where it is apparent that the data portion may contain parameters of operations. Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” where the temperature data is the payload.
With regards to “wherein the plurality of defined commands comprises at least one possible command for each possible value of a possible parameter corresponding to a respective mode of operation of the AC system;”, Drimusz describes “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “These modes can be represented on 4 bits: 00, 01, 10 and 11; but for security, they are represented on 8 bits. This setting is mostly the one in the first position in the message sent.” (Page 15).
With regards to “wherein the plurality of defined commands comprises at least two possible commands representing respective different numerical values of a possible parameter exhibiting numerical values;”, Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
With regards to “use, during an operating phase, said at least one emitter to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”, Drimusz describes “This specification describes programming a universal IR remote control, that is a remote control that can be programmed to control more than one device” (Paragraph 21) where it is obvious that the programmed universal control can be used to send commands. Mercier describes “An infrared emitter is needed on the testing board in order to test if the data has been correctly analysed. Indeed, after learning all the settings, the only way to make sure that they have been correctly understood is to send it to the air conditioner.” (Page 17).
With regards to “wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”, Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
With regards to “and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”, Drimusz describes “The IR transmission of FIG. 9A has a leader portion 212, a data portion 214, and an inter-code gap 216 and “The successive transmissions of the data portion 214 (which, after the initial data transmission may or may not include the leader portion 212), serves at least two purposes. If an indicator is held down the command may be repeated. For example, if the indicator is the "Volume Up" indicator, the device may continue to increase the volume until the indicator is no longer activated”. (Paragraph 44). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2¸ the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein, during a training phase, the user uses the second remote control to successively send, in a defined order, each of the defined commands falls under pre-solution activity and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the system further comprises a user device connected to the first remote controller and configured to provide, upon an input from the user, instructions to the first remote controller to send to the AC system one of said defined commands is a generic system and thus falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the user device is further configured, during the training phase, to provide instructions to the user to send each of the defined commands, in the defined order falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 5, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the remote controller comprises at least one sensor of humidity or temperature, and is configured to send to said user device measurements of said at least one sensor falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation wherein said user device comprises a display screen and is configured to display said measurements to the user or is configured to automatically send instructions fall under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the format of each data frame is defined by the protocol of communication with the AC system, each data frame further comprising: a header section falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitations wherein the at least one processing logic has access to a database of protocols of communication with AC systems, and wherein said at least one processing logic is configured, during said training phase, when receiving a data frame that belongs to a protocol found in the database, to define a set of possible data frames corresponding respectively to a set of possible commands of the AC system defined by said protocol found in the database falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 8, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the plurality of defined commands comprise, for each possible parameter of said set of parameters of operations of the AC system, at least two defined commands corresponding to two different values of the possible parameter falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 9, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the at least one processing logic is configured to define the set of possible data frames as a set of all possible combinations of all possible values of the parameters falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein said first remote controller is a remote controller comprising sad at least one processing logic is a generic system and thus falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 11, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein, during the training phase, said at least one processing logic is configured to detect incorrect data frames falls under instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 12:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
“defining, during said training phase, from said plurality of data frames corresponding to said plurality of defined commands of the AC system, a set of possible data frames corresponding respectively to a set of possible commands of the AC system defining a protocol of communication with the AC system”
”for each possible numerical value n3 between the first numerical value and the second numerical value, define possible data frames having possible numerical value n3 associated with a possible command having a value of possible parameter equal to: v3 = v1 + (n3-n1)/(n2-n1) * (v2-v1)”
The limitation of defining a plurality of data frames corresponding to possible commands can be reasonably performed with the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of defining possible numerical values recites a mathematical formula and thus falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 includes the following limitations:
“A method comprising: receiving, during a training phase, by at least one receiver of electronic waves of a first remote controller and from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system;”
“using, during an operating phase, at least emitter of electromagnetic waves of the first remote controller to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”
“and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”
The limitations of receiving electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames, wherein the processing logic is configured to obtain a first and second numerical values from data frames, and wherein the first or second value is a minimum or maximum value fall under mere data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation of using at least one emitter to send electromagnetic waves to the AC system falls under post-solution activity and is also thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of receiving electromagnetic waves, sending electromagnetic waves using a remote controller, and obtaining two numerical values from data frames, wherein the first or the second value is a minimum or a maximum value represent functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner within the industry.
With regards to “A method comprising: receiving, during a training phase, by at least one receiver of electronic waves of a first remote controller and from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system;” Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “Once the position is known, the user decreases the temperature degree by degree in order to record the value(s) of this/these specific byte(s) for each temperature. This method is showed on the figure 9 This procedure is used for all the different settings of the air conditioner: fan position, modes, fan speed, timer... When the common settings have been recorded, the program asks if other settings have to be recorded. In the database, 5 more tables have been created in order to allow additional settings” (page 20).
With regards to “using, during an operating phase, at least emitter of electromagnetic waves of the first remote controller to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.” With regards to “use, during an operating phase, said at least one emitter to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”, Drimusz describes “This specification describes programming a universal IR remote control, that is a remote control that can be programmed to control more than one device” (Paragraph 21) where it is obvious that the programmed universal control can be used to send commands. Mercier describes “An infrared emitter is needed on the testing board in order to test if the data has been correctly analysed. Indeed, after learning all the settings, the only way to make sure that they have been correctly understood is to send it to the air conditioner.” (Page 17).
With regards to “wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”, Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
With regards to “and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”, Drimusz describes “The IR transmission of FIG. 9A has a leader portion 212, a data portion 214, and an inter-code gap 216 and “The successive transmissions of the data portion 214 (which, after the initial data transmission may or may not include the leader portion 212), serves at least two purposes. If an indicator is held down the command may be repeated. For example, if the indicator is the "Volume Up" indicator, the device may continue to increase the volume until the indicator is no longer activated”. (Paragraph 44). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
“defining, during said training phase, from said plurality of data frames corresponding to said plurality of defined commands of the AC system, a set of possible data frames corresponding respectively to a set of possible commands of the AC system defining a protocol of communication with the AC system”
”for each possible numerical value n3 between the first numerical value and the second numerical value, define possible data frames having possible numerical value n3 associated with a possible command having a value of possible parameter equal to: v3 = v1 + (n3-n1)/(n2-n1) * (v2-v1)”
The limitation of defining a plurality of data frames corresponding to possible commands can be reasonably performed with the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of defining possible numerical values recites a mathematical formula and thus falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 includes the following limitations:
“A computer program product comprising computer code instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer code instructions when executed by one or more processor, configure the one or more processors to implement a method, wherein the method comprising: receiving, during a training phase, by at least one receiver of electronic waves of a first remote controller and from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system;”
“using, during an operating phase, at least emitter of electromagnetic waves of the first remote controller to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”
“wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”
“and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”
The limitations of receiving electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames, wherein the processing logic is configured to obtain a first and second numerical values from data frames, and wherein the first or second value is a minimum or maximum value fall under mere data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation of using at least one emitter to send electromagnetic waves to the AC system falls under post-solution activity and is also thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of receiving electromagnetic waves, sending electromagnetic waves using a remote controller, and obtaining two numerical values from data frames, wherein the first or the second value is a minimum or a maximum value represent functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner within the industry.
With regards to ““A computer program product comprising computer code instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer code instructions when executed by one or more processor, configure the one or more processors to implement a method, wherein the method comprising: receiving, during a training phase, by at least one receiver of electronic waves of a first remote controller and from a second remote controller associated to an air conditioning (AC) system, electromagnetic waves carrying a plurality of data frames corresponding respectively to a plurality of defined commands of the AC system;”, Drimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “Once the position is known, the user decreases the temperature degree by degree in order to record the value(s) of this/these specific byte(s) for each temperature. This method is showed on the figure 9 This procedure is used for all the different settings of the air conditioner: fan position, modes, fan speed, timer... When the common settings have been recorded, the program asks if other settings have to be recorded. In the database, 5 more tables have been created in order to allow additional settings” (page 20).
With regards to “using, during an operating phase, at least emitter of electromagnetic waves of the first remote controller to send to the AC system, upon an input from a user to send one of the possible commands, electromagnetic waves carrying one of the possible data frames corresponding to said one of the possible commands.”, Drimusz describes “This specification describes programming a universal IR remote control, that is a remote control that can be programmed to control more than one device” (Paragraph 21) where it is obvious that the programmed universal control can be used to send commands. Mercier describes “An infrared emitter is needed on the testing board in order to test if the data has been correctly analysed. Indeed, after learning all the settings, the only way to make sure that they have been correctly understood is to send it to the air conditioner.” (Page 17).
With regards to “wherein the at least one processing logic is configured, during the training phase, to: obtain a first numerical value n1 in a first data frame corresponding to a first defined value v1 of the possible parameter; obtain a second numerical value n2 in a second data frame corresponding to a second defined value v2 of the possible parameter”, Dimusz describes “In the configuration of FIG. 7B, the signal receiver 34, the signal interpreter 38, and the analyzer 36 are in the same device, which may be the universal remote control 30” (Paragraph 37) and “The user is prompted to select the "1" indicator on the indicator pad of the native remote control… At block 116, it is determined that the device has been identified, because the command codes corresponding to native remote indicator pad indicators "1", "2", "3", and "4" are consistent with device code D3 only. Therefore command set of device code D3 is programmed into the universal remote control at block 118” (Paragraph 34). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
With regards to “and, wherein at least one of the first value or the second value is a minimum value or a maximum value of the possible parameter”, Drimusz describes “The IR transmission of FIG. 9A has a leader portion 212, a data portion 214, and an inter-code gap 216 and “The successive transmissions of the data portion 214 (which, after the initial data transmission may or may not include the leader portion 212), serves at least two purposes. If an indicator is held down the command may be repeated. For example, if the indicator is the "Volume Up" indicator, the device may continue to increase the volume until the indicator is no longer activated”. (Paragraph 44). Mercier describes “So the user is asked to first select the lowest temperature and then the maximal temperature of the air conditioner” and “By receiving these 2 information and comparing the 2 rows of data received, the position of the byte(s) defining the temperature can be found” (Page 19).
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 5712722748. 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.
/W.X.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights