DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The preliminary amended of the claims filed on 12/6/2024 is noted. Claim(s) 1-13 are pending for examination. This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a machine, process, and/or manufacture Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: Regarding claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners; and
transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 includes store warranty subscription information indicating whether or not each of a plurality of air conditioners is subscribed to a repair warranty against a refrigerant leakage; and acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners; and transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to a user of the arbitrary air conditioner, thus, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" in the form of business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10, i.e., system w/ memory processor and transmission to information terminal; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10, store warranty subscription information indicating whether or not each of a plurality of air conditioners is subscribed to a repair warranty against a refrigerant leakage; and acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners; and transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to a user of the arbitrary air conditioner, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10, recite i.e., system w/ memory processor and transmission to information terminal. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 10, i.e., system w/ memory processor and transmission to information terminal; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 10 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-8, claims 2-10 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to warranty against refrigerant leakage and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., claim 4-5 – “interface” prompt, claim 7 – display, claim 8 – detector/circuit/communication). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2022/0005051 A1) in view of Lerick et al. (US 2016/0117646 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
A server system comprising:
a hardware memory configured to store warranty subscription information indicating whether or not each of a plurality of [appliances] is subscribed to a repair warranty against a [failure] ([0036]-[0037] and [0039] – ...one or more customer sites... and [0042]-[0044] -Immediate attention may be required if the alarm is due to the failure of a critical appliance (e.g., a residential heating system in winter) or some other time-sensitive issue and [0054] - The process 50 may determine whether the component or asset 26 is under warranty by querying the database 20 for information regarding what entitlements apply to the component or asset, as the case may be. These may include one or more manufacturer warranties, distributer warranties, contracts (e.g., an “extended warranty” purchased from the seller), or any other entitlement); and
a processor configured to execute a program stored in the hardware memory and perform (FIG. 1 and [0040]) a process including:
acquiring a [failure] notification indicating a detection of the [failure] of [an arbitrary appliance among the plurality of appliances] ([0036]-[0037] and [0039] – ...one or more customer sites... and [0042]-[0044] -Immediate attention may be required if the alarm is due to the failure of a critical appliance (e.g., a residential heating system in winter) or some other time-sensitive issue); and
transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary [appliance]... ([0052] - In block 58, the process 50 may apply the warranty entitlements, proceed to block 62, and initiate a warranty claim process in accordance with the applied warranty. Initiating the warranty claim process may include, for example, generating and submitting a claim to the manufacturer or workorder to repair or replace the component or asset 26 based on the terms of the applicable warranty as determined in blocks 56-60).
Miller fails to explicitly disclose:
...plurality of air conditioners is subscribed to a repair warranty against a refrigerant leakage;
acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners; and
transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to an information terminal used by a user of the arbitrary air conditioner.
However, in an analogous art, Lerick teaches [concepts of]
plurality of air conditioners is subscribed to a repair warranty against a refrigerant leakage ([0026] - The example system 100 includes a computer system 102 that stores and uses information about buildings, such as the example building 104 (e.g., house, condo building/unit, apartment building/unit, office, garage, recreational facility), to assist users with issues related to buildings and components included therein, such as the components 106 (e.g., systems within the building (e.g., fire suppression system, water system, HVAC system, electrical system) and/or subparts of such systems (e.g., fixtures, pipes, countertops, walling material, insulation, cabinets, appliances)) and [0031] - The building data repository 122a can store information regarding the building 104, such as information about the building 104 (e.g., address, type of building, date of construction, unique identifier for the building), information about the components 106 (e.g., the component information 116, the warranty information 118), and/or other appropriate information);
acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners ([0034] - The owner 110 can use his/her computing device 124 (e.g., laptop, tablet computing device, smartphone, wearable computing device) to transmit initial information about an issue in the building 104, as indicated by step C (126). Such issues can include a variety of different things that may be malfunctioning or otherwise problematic with the building 104 and/or the components 106, such as breakage, leaks, items becoming discolored and/or wearing out, and/or appliances not functioning properly and [0037] - Such identification can be made by the computer system 102 based on one or more of a variety of appropriate factors, such as the type of issue (e.g., water, electrical, appliance, HVAC, interior, exterior), classifications of the components 106 (e.g., water system component, electrical system component, appliance, HVAC component, interior component, exterior component), information identifying a location within the building 104 where the issue exists (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, garage, basement), locations within the building 104 where the components 106 are located (e.g., particular room(s) where the components 106 are located), and/or process flows/algorithms that may be used to identify candidate components that may be implicated as part of the issue); and
transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to an information terminal used by a user of the arbitrary air conditioner ([0038]-[0039] - As indicated by step E (130), the computer system 102 can then transmit information regarding the identified candidate components and associated warranties to the computing device 124 for the building owner 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lerick to the appliance/warranty of Miller to include ...plurality of air conditioners is subscribed to a repair warranty against a refrigerant leakage; acquiring a leakage notification indicating a detection of the refrigerant leakage of an arbitrary air conditioner among the plurality of air conditioners; and
transmitting notification information including the warranty subscription information corresponding to the arbitrary air conditioner to an information terminal used by a user of the arbitrary air conditioner.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lerick to Miller to do so as it provides / allows [a system to] assist users in triaging and resolving issues that may arise with a building (Lerick, [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the system to claim 1.
Miller further discloses wherein the warranty subscription information includes information indicating a presence or absence of the warranty subscription and a warranty validity period for a repair of the [failure] (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 and [0044]-[0046] – warranty coverage... contract coverage... effectivity dates...)
Lerick further teaches ...the refrigerant leakage... ([0034] - The owner 110 can use his/her computing device 124 (e.g., laptop, tablet computing device, smartphone, wearable computing device) to transmit initial information about an issue in the building 104, as indicated by step C (126). Such issues can include a variety of different things that may be malfunctioning or otherwise problematic with the building 104 and/or the components 106, such as breakage, leaks, items becoming discolored and/or wearing out, and/or appliances not functioning properly and [0037] - Such identification can be made by the computer system 102 based on one or more of a variety of appropriate factors, such as the type of issue (e.g., water, electrical, appliance, HVAC, interior, exterior), classifications of the components 106 (e.g., water system component, electrical system component, appliance, HVAC component, interior component, exterior component), information identifying a location within the building 104 where the issue exists (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, garage, basement), locations within the building 104 where the components 106 are located (e.g., particular room(s) where the components 106 are located), and/or process flows/algorithms that may be used to identify candidate components that may be implicated as part of the issue).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 3;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the system to claim 1.
Lerick further teaches wherein the notification information includes repair prompt information prompting the repair based on the warranty subscription information ([0042] - A user interface can be provided by the computing device 124 to output the candidate component and warranty information, and to receive user selection of one or more of the candidate components as the source of the issue and to receive user input regarding other associated information (e.g., further description of the issue and the problem with the components, availability for service repairs).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 4;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the system to claim 1.
Lerick further teaches wherein the repair prompt information includes information indicating candidates of a repair schedule for the refrigerant leakage by a repair service provider ([0034] and [0037] and [0042] - A user interface can be provided by the computing device 124 to output the candidate component and warranty information, and to receive user selection of one or more of the candidate components as the source of the issue and to receive user input regarding other associated information (e.g., further description of the issue and the problem with the components, availability for service repairs and [0060] - The computing device 124, such as through a mobile app, may provide the building owner 110 with features through which the building owner 110 can further customize the service on the building 104, such as requesting a particular time for the service provider to arrive at the building 102 and/or requesting a different or specific service provider (e.g., someone other than the other party 112)).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 5;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the system to claim 1.
Lerick further teaches wherein the repair prompt information includes information indicating a date and time when the leakage notification is acquired (FIG. 5B – depicts repair notification received w/ date/time i.e. related to Repair Prompt FIG. 6H and [0034] and [0037]).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 6;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the system to claim 1.
Lerick further teaches wherein the hardware memory stores repair history information indicating a history of the repair of the refrigerant leakage in association with the warranty subscription information ([0034] and [0037] and [0112] - The features 620 that are presented in FIG. 6E can be populated based on a variety of factors, such as the specific components of the fire sprinkler system, historical issues with these components (e.g., issues identified through other service inquiries and/or warranty claims), historical issues associated with fire sprinkler systems installed and/or serviced by one or more contractors who have worked on the user's system (e.g., history of the contractor not properly installing particular components that later fail), and/or other appropriate factors).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 7;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose the refrigerant leakage repair system comprising: the server system according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above); and
Lerick further teaches the information terminal, wherein the information terminal includes a display controller configured to display a display screen including the warranty subscription information (FIG. 6D and [0111]), and
the display screen includes a repair request device configured to make a repair request to a repair service provider (FIG. 6A-H and [0105] - FIGS. 6A-H are example screenshots 600a-h of an example mobile application that can be used to address building issues. The example application can run on a mobile computing device that is associated with a building owner, such as the computing device 124 that is associated with the building owner 110 and/or the building owner computing device 304. The screenshots in FIGS. 6A-H depict an example sequence of screens though which the building owner could address issues related to one or more components/systems (e.g., fire sprinkler systems) that are installed in a building, including submitting building issues and setting up service appointments).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Lerick to Miller in view of Lerick, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 9; claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 9 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 10; claim(s) 10 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 10 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2022/0005051 A1) in view of Lerick et al. (US 2016/0117646 A1) and further in view of Arensmeier et al. (US 9,741,023 B2).
Regarding Claim 8;
Miller in view of Lerick disclose A refrigerant leakage repair system comprising: the server system according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above); and the plurality of air conditioners, wherein the arbitrary air conditioner includes (see claim 1, above) [...].
Miller in view of Lerick fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the arbitrary air conditioner includes: a detector configured to detect a state of a refrigerant during an operation of the arbitrary air conditioner; a determination circuit configured to determine a presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to a detection result of the detecting; and a communication device configured to transmit the leakage notification to the server system in a case where the presence of the refrigerant leakage is determined, and wherein the determination circuit performs a process of determining the presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to the detection result during a test operation period of the arbitrary air conditioner based on a change in an outside air temperature.
However, in an analogous art, Arensmeier teaches wherein the arbitrary air conditioner includes: a detector configured to detect a state of a refrigerant during an operation of the arbitrary air conditioner (col. 4, lines 29-33 - In yet further features, the data includes air temperature sensor data and refrigerant temperature sensor data. In still further features, the data includes air pressure sensor data. In further features, the data includes refrigerant pressure sensor data.); a determination circuit configured to determine a presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to a detection result of the detecting (FIG. 2 and col. 14, lines 66-col. 14, line 4 - The conduction sensor 384 may be located on the floor or other surface where the air handler unit 304 is located. The conduction sensor 384 may sense water leaks that are for one reason or another not detected by the float switch 376 or the condensate sensor 380, including leaks from other systems such as a hot water heater); and a communication device configured to transmit the leakage notification to the server system in a case where the presence of the refrigerant leakage is determined (FIG. 2), and wherein the determination circuit performs a process of determining the presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to the detection result during a test operation period of the arbitrary air conditioner based on a change in an outside air temperature (FIG. 6B and FIG. 12B – Outside Air Temperature and col. 35, lines 3-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arensmeier to the appliance/AC of Miller to include wherein the arbitrary air conditioner includes: a detector configured to detect a state of a refrigerant during an operation of the arbitrary air conditioner; a determination circuit configured to determine a presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to a detection result of the detecting; and a communication device configured to transmit the leakage notification to the server system in a case where the presence of the refrigerant leakage is determined, and wherein the determination circuit performs a process of determining the presence or absence of the refrigerant leakage according to the detection result during a test operation period of the arbitrary air conditioner based on a change in an outside air temperature.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Arensmeier to Miller in view of Lerick to do so as it provides / allows remote monitoring and diagnosis of residential and light commercial environmental comfort systems (Arensmeier, col. 1, lines 14-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mansfield et al. (US 2017/0004508 A1) discusses An automated event management system for smart appliances residing at locations of owners and communicatively connected to respective smart-appliance event-reporting platforms includes a service response platform and an enterprise resource platform. The service response platform receives appliance event messages from respective ones of the smart appliances and normalizes them into outbound service call requests having a standardized format and determines an appropriate responsive action to the outbound service call request by accessing data including past information and performing a triage to determine root failures. Based upon the determination a trade and replacement parts are selected. After repair information is gathered to diagnose that repair and improve the data for future use. The enterprise resource platform manages the service providers by scheduling service calls directly in calendars, by dispatching the providers, by selecting replacement parts and communicating with the owners regarding the service call, and by transmitting the service call data. (Abstract).
Natarajan et al. (US 2018/0240124 A1) discusses Described is a system and method for warranty tracking. The system allows customers to register a purchased product in the system at the point of sale. A replacement product is automatically purchased at the end of product life and/or warranty expiration. The warranty expiration may be based on the warranty expiration date and/or the operating conditions of the purchased product. The operating conditions are recorded by the purchased product and may result in voiding of the warranty. (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626