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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed January 6, 2026. Claims 15-28 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
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.
Claims 15 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drees (US 2011/0178977 A1).
Claim 15: Drees discloses a method for reporting, in a machine-supported manner, fault states (page 1 paragraph [0005]) related to components (devices) of a passenger transport system (elevator) (page 2 paragraph [0031]), where a portable reporting device (mobile phone communication transceiver) is provided as an interface (page 3 paragraph [0036]). A mobile phone is adapted to be carried by a reporting technician, as is recognized in the art. A fault corresponding to a component (page 7 paragraph [0057]) is detected by a technician to be examined according to manual fault assessment engine during maintenance of the passenger transport system instead of an automated diagnostic process (page 8 paragraph [0061]). A fault collector (1250) receives component information including fault information describing a fault state in the component being examined from a manual diagnostics module (416) (page 20 paragraph [0152]) by operating a reporting device (graphical user interface) to acquire the component information, and automatically transmitting the component information from the reporting device to an analysis device in a first data transmission process (page 8 paragraph [0061]).
A selection of possible causes of a fault state of the component being examined is automatically selected from different possible causes of faults stored in the analysis device based on the component information and corresponding selection information describing the selection of possible causes of the fault state is transmitted to the reporting device in a second data transmission process, and automatically outputting the selection information to a display of the reporting device (page 20 paragraph [0151]). The different possible causes of faults would be stored as a list, as is recognized in the art. Sub-selection information describing a sub-selection (confirming or denying) possible cause selected by the technician (user) is received from the displayed selection information using the reporting device (page 20 paragraph [0150]), and the sub-selection information is automatically transmitted from the reporting device to the analysis device as feedback in a third data transmission process (page 20 paragraph [0150]).
Claim 19: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where usage site (building) information is transmitted in the first transmission process, wherein a fault is categorized by usage site information describing a usage site of the component being examined (page 8 paragraph [0062]).
Claim 20: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where the sub-selection information representing the possible causes of the fault state are collected by performing the method steps multiple times, and a monitoring device is automatically informed about the collected sub-selection information related to any of the possible causes (page 20 paragraph [0144]) when a frequency of the related sub-selection information exceeds a predefined frequency threshold (times of occurrence) (page 8 paragraph [0062]).
Claim 21: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where the predefined frequency threshold value is with consideration of functionalities causing energy consumption of the component being examined to become abnormal (page 7 paragraph [0057]).
Claim 22: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where the predefined frequency threshold value is with consideration of a frequency of use (frequency of occurrence) of the component being examined (page 8 paragraph [0062]).
Claim 23: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where usage site (building) information is collected when the sub-selection information is collected, wherein a fault is categorized by usage site information describing a usage site of the component being examined, and the frequency of threshold value is predefined with consideration of the usage site of the component being examined (page 8 paragraph [0062]).
Claim 24: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where correction information (recommended actions for assessment) is transmitted from the analysis device to the reporting device as a proposal for correcting the fault state corresponding to the sub-selection information (page 8 paragraph [0061]).
Claim 25: Drees discloses a method for reporting fault states relating to components of a passenger transport system in a machine-supported manner, and a portable reporting device is provided as an interface, as stated above. A report generating device (supervisory controller) is adapted to carry out said method and includes the reporting device with a display and an analysis device in data communication with the reporting device (page 1 paragraph [0009]).
Claim 26: Drees discloses a method for reporting fault states relating to components of a passenger transport system in a machine-supported manner, where component information and sub-selection information is received form the reporting device, and a portable reporting device is provided as an interface, as stated above. A report generating device (supervisory controller) is adapted to carry out said method and includes a reporting device with a display and an evaluating device in data communication with the reporting device (page 1 paragraph [0009]). The evaluating device (automated diagnostics module 414) includes an analysis device that receives the component information to evaluate the component information for fault states (page 20 paragraph [0152]) relating to components of the passenger transport system in a machine-supported manner (page 7 paragraph [0057]). The evaluating device further informs a monitoring device in a machine-supported manner of the fault states that have occurred in the components (page 8 paragraph [0061]).
Claims 27 and 28: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where a computer program product comprising machine-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory machine readable medium to be executed by a processor to prompt the processor to carry out the machine-readable instructions as said method (pages 1-2 paragraph [0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drees (US 2011/0178977 A1) in view of McGill et al. (US 11,635,742 B2).
Claim 16: Drees discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose identity information to be acquired by reading out machine-readable information stored on the component being examined.
However McGill et al. teaches a method for reporting, in a machine-supported manner, fault states related to components (equipment 102b such as elevator machinery) of a passenger transport system (elevator) (column 3 lines 28-37), where identity information (equipment identifier) (column 7 lines 2-5) is acquired by reading out machine-readable information (barcode) stored on the component being examined via camera pointing at the component to trigger AR content (column 6 lines 16-22, 32-34).
Given the teachings of McGill et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Drees with providing identity information to be acquired by reading out machine-readable information stored on the component being examined. Doing so would allow a “building [to] logically [be] associated with the piece of equipment identifier in a one-to-many correspondence in [a] server” so that “the server identifies, in real-time, a present fault (e.g. presently broken or malfunctioning component) or a projected fault (e.g. component projected to break or malfunction in the future) in the piece of equipment based on the sensed readings sourced (e.g. read, collected) from the user profile” as taught in McGill et al. (column 7 lines 6-9, 29-34).
Claim 17: Drees modified by McGill et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the identity information is an optically readable code (barcode) as taught in McGill et al. (column 7 lines 2-5). The code is read out with a scanner (camera) when the reporting device is positioned in proximity to the component to acquire the identify information where the scanner is shown to be integrated into the reporting device (mobile client) (column 6 lines 16-22) such as a smartphone (112c) (column 6 lines 12-14).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drees (US 2011/0178977 A1) in view of Rao et al. (US 8,825,470 B2).
Claim 18: Drees discloses a method as stated above, where a textual user interface displays feedback to a user, or receives input from a user (page 8 paragraph [0061]). The selection information then would be outputted to the reporting device in a language spoken by the technician, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose the language to be preset by the technician.
However Rao et al. teaches a method, where a user presets (selects) a language of a reporting device to receive feedback (reason phrase) (column 6 lines 57-61).
Given the teachings of Rao et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Drees with providing the language to be preset by the technician. Doing so would allow the software which executes the automatic steps to be used in different countries around the world, thereby increasing sales.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 7 of the response that “the interfaces 107, 109 obviously are wired into the smart building manager 106 for sending and receiving data. Drees does not describe the interfaces 107, 109 as portable reporting devices adapted to be carried by a reporting technician”. However Drees explicitly discloses that “[c]ommunications interfaces 107, 109 can be or include wired or wireless interfaces (e.g., … transceivers …) … In another example, one or both communications interfaces 107, 109 may include cellular or mobile phone communications transceivers” (page 3 paragraph [0036]) (emphasis added). A mobile phone is a portable communication device able to transmit and receive data via wireless communications, and therefore is considered a mobile phone communications transceiver which can be used as a wireless interface, is recognized in the art. Due to their portability, mobile phones are known to be adapted to be carried by a user. Therefore the wireless communications interface described in Drees as a mobile phone communications transceiver corresponds to a mobile phone. Drees then properly describes a portable reporting device adapted to be carried by a reporting technician, as required by applicants’ claims.
Applicants further state that “Drees describes an automated system monitoring operating subsystems in a building”. However Drees explicitly describes that “as an alternative to an automated diagnostics process provided by automated diagnostics module 414, FDD layer 114 can drive a user through a manual diagnostic process using manual diagnostics module 416. One or both of automated diagnostics module 414 and manual diagnostics module 416 can store data regarding the fault and the diagnosis thereof for further assessment by manual and/or automated fault assessment engine 418” (page 8 paragraph [0061]) (emphasis added). Therefore according to Drees, a manual diagnostics process can be utilized instead of an automated diagnostics process in which assessment is done manually. It should be noted that applicants’ claims are not directed to a system for monitoring operations within a building, but instead a method for reporting fault states. The manual diagnostic process described in Drees properly anticipates applicants’ invention as required by the claimed limitations.
On page 8, applicants state that “Drees does not describe the fault as being detected by a technician”. However applicants’ claims do not require a fault to be detected by a technician, but instead a technician to detect a component to be examined. Drees discloses that “[t]he user may select one of the faults for manual investigation or calculation” (page 8 paragraph [0061]) based on a manual prioritization of which faults should receive immediate investigation (page 8 paragraph [0063]). The faults are identified at the equipment/component level (page 7 paragraph [0057]). Therefore Drees discloses that a technician can detect a component from a list of faults which should be examined, as required by applicants’ claimed limitations.
Further, applicants’ state that “the Drees method does not transmit component information from a portable reporting device to the fault collector 1250”. However as shown above, Drees discloses a user to select a fault for manual examination via interface, where faults are identified at the equipment/component level, and the interface is a mobile phone. Therefore upon a user selecting a fault from a mobile phone, a corresponding component is selected for examination, which would include component information distinguishing it from other components. Drees then properly shows that component information is transmitted from the portable reporting device to an analysis device, as required by applicants’ claims.
Applicants additionally state on page 9 that “McGill (column 7 lines 2-5) does not mention reading out machine-readable information stored on the components". However McGill et al. teaches that AR content is generated in response to a camera pointing at a piece of equipment (102b) when a mobile client is positioned in proximity to the equipment (column 6 lines 16-22), where AR content is triggered by a barcode sensor (column 6 lines 32-34) and equipment identifiers correspond to barcodes to identify different equipment within a building (column 7 lines 4-5). A barcode is read and interpreted using a barcode reader, as is recognized in the art, and is therefore considered machine-readable information. Due to the camera having to be proximate the equipment to read the barcode, the barcode would be visible on the equipment and therefore physically stored on the equipment. It should be noted that applicants’ claims do not further describe how the machine-readable information is to be read, nor how the machine-readable information is to be stored on the component, i.e., physically or electronically. Therefore McGill et al. properly teaches acquiring identity information by reading out machine-readable information stored on a component, as required by applicants’ claim 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights