DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on March 4, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20, as amended, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 11, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the actions related to managing equipment in a building.
Under step 1, claims 1-7, recite a controller or apparatus, claims 8-14 recite a method and claims 15-20 recite a system, as such each of the claims are directed toward one of the statutory categories.
Under step 2A1, Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claims are directed toward monitoring parameters to managing a building, specifically for the equipment that operates the state or condition of the building.
Additionally the claims contain Mathematical concepts which include “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
The Examiner notes that the Patent Trail and Appeal Board agreed with this analysis on page 5, of the decision on March 4, 2025. Specifically “We agree with the Examiner's findings that the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and a mathematical concept.”
While the claim 1 recites a controller containing a processor and media, the controller is directed at comparing parameters to determine whether abnormal conditions occur. The act of comparing parameters to determine if an abnormal condition occurs is a form of mathematical calculations, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I, C. In this case the claims are similar to comparing values for an alarm limit as the final result is providing an alert to a user. Claim 8 recites the method which also compares parameters to determine if an alert should be sent, which again is a mathematical concept. Claim 15 recites building equipment and a controller but the controller is comparing the parameters to determine if an alert should be sent, which again is a mathematical concept. Additionally the claims recite elements which amount to a method of organizing human activity as the system instructs users there is a problem and how to correct that problem as shown in dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20. The limitation of initiating a corrective action is broad enough to allow for merely transmitting information as established by the dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 as it can be merely providing an alert, as such this is merely data transmission which is an insignificant extra solution activity step, see MPEP 2106.05(g). As such the claims are not integrated into a practical application and when considered individually or in combination the claims fail to recite more than merely an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 8 and 15 have been previously amended to recite “comparing model parameters of a set of predictive models corresponding to a set of building zones, the model parameters comprising internal parameters of the predictive models indicating system dynamics of the building zones by defining a relationship between one or more inputs to the predictive models and one or more outputs of the predictive models, to determine whether any of the building zones are exhibiting abnormal system dynamics” which describes the parameters but the limitation is still merely comparing parameters to determine whether any of the building zones are exhibiting abnormal system dynamics. As such the limitations continue to compare data and based on that comparison indicate a corrective action which could be merely sending out an alert a shown in claim 7. The claims have also been amended to recite “wherein the corrective action comprises performing a system identification process to identify updated model parameters for at least one of the predictive models corresponding to the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics” which merely identifies data but doesn’t establish how the data is identified or how the identified data is used for initiating corrective actions. As such the limitations fail to render the claims into a practical application. Claim 8 recites “wherein the corrective action comprises repairing or replacing building equipment that operates to affect a variable state or condition of the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics” which establishes what the corrective action is in this case repairing or replacing, which is part of the method of organizing human activity as it instructs the users as to the actions which need to repaired or replaced. As such this does not render the claims into a practical application. Claim 15 recites “wherein the corrective action comprises modifying a control strategy for the building equipment to a modified control strategy; and operating the building equipment according to the modified control strategy” which establishes what the corrective action is in this case modifying a control strategy but fails to establish how it is modified or what performs the modification. As such it can be a person performing the modification and merely carrying out the rules set forth by the method of organizing human activity. As such the limitations does not render the claims into a practical application.
The Examiner notes that the Patent Trail and Appeal Board agreed with this analysis on page 6, of the decision on March 4, 2025. Specifically “We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a "practical application," as that phrase is used in the revised Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.”
To address the Board decision the applicant has amended the claims further to recite “wherein performing the system identification process comprises operating building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the building”, claim 1, “temporarily disabling building equipment identified as a source of the abnormal system dynamics and operating other”, claim 8, and “to affect a variable state or condition of the building”, claim 16. While the applicant has argued that “the “article” transformed is “the building” and the “transformation” of article change “a variable state or condition of the building” to a different state by “operating building equipment”, the Examiner disagrees. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(c) entitled Particular Transformation establishes that the transformation can be an important clue but “is not a stand-alone test for eligibility”. Further, the building has not be transformed as the building continues to be a building. The manner in which the equipment has been operated has not been discussed but rather merely generally describes the functions as being operated to “affect a variable state or condition of the building”. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(c) “Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article”. In this case there is no new function or use as such there is no evidence that the building has been transformed as alleged by the applicant.
As stated by the Board on page 6 of their decision, “the recitations do not affect an improvement in the functioning of the processors or media or other technology, do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Id. Thus, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions that are not integrated into a practical application and thus claim 1 is directed to an “abstract idea.””.
The claims have been amended, the amended feature of claim 1, “in response to determining the source of the abnormal system dynamics is the at least one of the predictive models was generated using training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics” which has provided the conditions in which “performing a system identification process” has been performed. Again it does not establish how the determination of the source is performed.
The amended feature of claim 1, “updating the at least one of the predictive models using new training data generated by operating the building equipment, the new training data representative of the current system dynamics and improving an accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models” which is merely updating the data but does not establish how this improves accuracy.
The amended feature of claim 8, “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics based on which of the predictive models or the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing” as stated above with claim 1, the limitation establishes that it determines a source of the abnormal system dynamics but does not establish how. Rather it establishes the data the determination is based on that is either on the which of the predictive models or the model parameters which are determined to be abnormal. The limitations do not establish how these pieces of data are used to determine the source.
The amended feature of claim 8, “in response to determining that one or more malfunction devices of building equipment are the source of the abnormal system dynamics, temporarily disabling the one or malfunctioning devices” which has provided the conditions in which “temporarily disabling the one or malfunctioning devices” has been performed. Again it does not establish how the determination of the source is performed. As far as the temporarily disabling this has already been discussed prior, as it is merely operating the building equipment and the new limitations merely establishes when.
The amended feature of claim 8, “wherein temporarily disabling the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment improves an accuracy of at least one of the predictive models corresponding to the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics” which establishes that operating the equipment improves accuracy but does not establish how the accuracy is improved.
The amended feature of claim 15, “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics based on which of the predictive models or the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing” as stated above with claims 1 and 8, the limitation establishes that it determines a source of the abnormal system dynamics but does not establish how. Rather it establishes the data the determination is based on that is either on the which of the predictive models or the model parameters which are determined to be abnormal. The limitations do not establish how these pieces of data are used to determine the source.
The amended feature of claim 15, “in response to determine the source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have reasonable values” which establishes when the parameters are adjusted but not how the determination is made or even how to establish reasonable values and make those adjustments.
The amended feature of claim 15, “using a predictive model including the one or more of the model parameters having the reasonable values, wherein adjusting the one or more of the model parameters have reasonable values improves an accuracy of the predictive model” which establishes using the model with the reasonable values improves the accuracy but provides not specifics as to how the accuracy is improved or even how the reasonable values are achieved.
As such each of these limitations merely apply the abstract idea on a computer as they fail to recite specifics as to how the functions are performed, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the limitations establish the goal of improving accuracy but again provides no specifics as to how the accuracy is improved. Rather it appears that the result of the function is to improve accuracy but the limitations fail to recite how the functions themselves are achieved. As such this amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the claims fail to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that at least one of the predictive models was generated using training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics, wherein the training data unrepresentative of the current system dynamics is determined as the source of the abnormal system dynamics if the training data was gathered prior to installing new building equipment that changes the system dynamics”, “the new training data representative of the current system dynamics and improving an accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of updating the at least one of the predictive models using the new training data representative of the current system dynamics, thereby causing the at least one of the predictive models more accurately represent the current system dynamics”. These limitations outline what the data represents but does to establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result of the update is a more accurate model. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is one or more malfunctioning devices of building equipment, wherein different model parameters of the set of predictive models are associated with different devices of the building equipment and the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment are determined by identifying which of the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing and selecting one or more devices of the building equipment associated with the model parameters determined to be abnormal as the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment” and “wherein temporarily disabling the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment improves an accuracy of at least one of the predictive models corresponding to the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics by preventing the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment from impacting the accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of malfunctioning during operation”. These limitations outline what the data represents specifically malfunctioning devices and preventing those devices from operating. The limitations however do not establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result of the prevention is a more accurate model. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, wherein the one or more of the model parameters are determined to have unreasonable values if the one or more of the model parameters are identified as outliers relative to other model parameters of the set of predictive models or deviate from expected values, base values or ranges of values of the model parameters as a result of the comparing;”, “in response to determining that the source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have reasonable values that do not qualify as outliers relative to the other model parameters of the set of predictive models or do not deviate from the expected values, the base values, or the ranges of values of the model parameters” and “wherein adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have the reasonable values improves an accuracy of the predictive model by causing the predictive model to more accurately represent actual system dynamics of the at least one of the building zones corresponding to the predictive model”. These limitations outline what the data represents specifically unreasonable values. The limitations however do not establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result is adjusting the values to have more reasonable values to make it more accurate. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted the above the limitations of the claims are directed toward both a mathematical calculation and a method of organizing human activity. The additional structure of equipment, processors and media are generic structural element and as such fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As noted above there are not additional elements which indicate that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, recites “determining whether a source of abnormal system dynamics of the at least one zone can be identified in at least one predictive model of the set of predictive models; in response to a determination that the source of abnormal system dynamics of the at least one zone can be identified in the at least one predictive model, identifying the source of abnormal system dynamics; and wherein the corrective action is selected based on the source of abnormal system dynamics” while this establishes that the source is identified this is done so in a generic general manner, as such this can be merely comparing information to identify the source. As such this can still be merely a mathematical calculation or a method of human activity as it is following rules. As such these limitations continue to be directed toward generic concepts rather than a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, recites “wherein the set of predictive models is generated using a system identification process based on training data to identify predictive models”, which establishes that the modes generated based on training data but does not actually train the models, rather the training and generation of the models is not required, as such this is merely a description of the models and not an active step. Further the claims allow for any manner of training and generation of the models. As such these sensors fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, recite “compare model parameters of the set of predictive models comprises at least one of: performing a multivariate outlier analysis on the model parameters; or determining whether the model parameters adhere to a threshold value based on a second building with similar characteristics to the building”, which describes further mathematical concepts, that is the specific data comparisons to determine if an alert is necessary or not. As such these sensors fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, recite “initiating the corrective action comprises: determining the corrective action based on which of the system dynamics are associated with the model parameters; generating corrective action instructions indicating how to perform the corrective action; and initiating the corrective action by providing the corrective action instructions to one or more entities”, which establishes a method of organizing human activity as it determines what actions a user is to perform, generates those actions and provides those actions to an entity or user. As such these sensors fail to render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6 and 13, recites “a database configured to store a plurality of predictive models for a plurality of buildings or a plurality of building spaces, wherein the operations further include querying the database to obtain the set of predictive models” . which stores and retrieves data which are considered insignificant extra solution activity steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g). As such does not render the claims into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20, which recite “corrective action comprises at least one of: providing an alert to a user; scheduling a maintenance activity for building equipment; purchasing new building equipment; generating control actions for the building equipment; or initiating a system identification experiment to gather training data”, which describes what the action is but not the action is required. That is the limitation is merely initiating the action. Further even if performed the actions amount to a method of organizing human activity as it either alerts the user, schedules the maintenance, purchases equipment, generates control actions or initiates gathering data, all of which are activities a user is to perform. As such does not render the claims into a practical application.
Thus when considered individually or as a combination these elements do not amount to a practical application.
As state above the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – building equipment, controller, processor, memory or media and circuits. The hardware in claimed limitations is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic components performing a generic functions of transmitting and receiving information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a components to perform the functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pages 10-20 regarding the 101 rejections, specifically that “Before analyzing the pending claims under Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B, it is noted that many of the Examiner's comments in the Office Action address previous versions of the claims and are believed to be moot because such comments do not apply to the current claim language. For example, the Office Action's comments on pages 3-6 do not pertain to the current claim language and thus are believed to be moot. The same is true of the findings from the PTAB quoted in the Office Action, as such findings pertain to a previous version of the claims which have been substantially amended after the PTAB decision, and thus are not binding for the current claim language. The following remarks address the versions of the pending claims as currently amended.”
“Applicant's previous response amended independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 to clarify (i) how the source of the abnormal system dynamics is determined and (ii) how each corrective action corrects the abnormal system dynamics, in an effort to avoid the additional elements in Claims 1, 8, and 15 being interpreted as general "apply it" limitations under MPEP 2106.05(f). However, the Office Action maintained the § 101 rejection for Claim 1 on the basis that the claim language "does not establish how the determination of the source is performed" and "does not establish how this improves accuracy." (Office Action, page 7). The Office Action includes similar comments for Claims 8 and 15 on pages 7-9.”
“In an effort to address these comments in the Office Action, Applicant has further amended Claims 1, 8, and 15 to provide additional detail on (i) how the source of the abnormal system dynamics is determined and (ii) how the accuracy of the predictive models are improved as a result of the corrective actions recited in these claims. Applicant submits that the features recited in amended Claims 1, 8, and 15 cannot reasonably be interpreted as "merely applying the abstract idea on a computer" under MPEP 2106.05(f), as suggested in the Office Action, because amended Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite specifics as to how each of these functions is performed and establish how each corrective action improves the accuracy of the predictive models. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended Claims 1, 8, and 15 are, at a minimum, directed to practical applications of the alleged abstract ideas, and are patent-eligible under§ 101 for the reasons discussed below.”
“Applicant submits that claim 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court applies a two-step framework to evaluate 35 U.S.C. 101. The first step is to determine whether the claims at issue are "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept while the second step is to "consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent eligible application." Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).”
“The MPEP lays out a multi-step evaluation framework for 35 U.S.C. § 101. The framework includes Step 2A "Prong One [which] asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon," MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(l)), Step 2A "Prong Two [which] asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application," MPEP, 2106.04(II)(A)(2)), and Step 2B which includes "[e]valuating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept."”
“Claims 1-20 are eligible under each of these steps.”
“The MPEP states, "Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon." MPEP, 2106.04(II)(A)(l). Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 8, and 15 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Prong One for the reasons that follow.”
“The Office Action alleges, on pages 2-3, that the claims recite "[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices" and "[a]dditionally the claims contain Mathematical concepts which include 'mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical Calculations."'”
“However, claim 1 is amended to recite, "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that at least one of the predictive models was generated using training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics, wherein the training data unrepresentative of the current system dynamics is determined as the source of the abnormal system dynamics if the training data was gathered prior to installing new building equipment that changes the system dynamics" "operating building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the building and updating the at least one of the predictive models using new training data generated by operating the building equipment, the new training data representative of the current system dynamics and improving an accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of updating the at least one of the predictive models using the new training data representative of the current system dynamics, thereby causing the at least one of the predictive models more accurately represent the current system dynamics." Emphasis added.”
“Claim 1 relates to improving the performance of building equipment operation by identifying sources of abnormal system dynamics resulting from model training from training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics, and updating predictive models using new training data. Therefore, even if claim I does involve certain methods of organizing human activity, or mathematical concepts, claim I recites computer techniques for improving model performance and equipment operation through identifying, and resolving, whether a predictive model is trained with training data not representative of current system dynamics.”
“Claim 8 recites similar model and equipment operation improvement techniques. Claim 8 is amended to recite, "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is one or more malfunctioning devices of building equipment, wherein different model parameters of the set of predictive models are associated with different devices of the building equipment and the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment are determined by identifying which of the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing and selecting one or more devices of the building equipment associated with the model parameters determined to be abnormal as the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment" and "temporarily disabling the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment and operating other building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics ... preventing the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment from impacting the accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of malfunctioning during operation." Emphasis added.”
“Claim 8 relates to improving the performance of building equipment operation by identifying building equipment associated with abnormal model parameters, and temporarily disabling the malfunctioning building devices to avoid impacting the accuracy of predictive models. Therefore, even if claim 8 does involve certain methods of organizing human activity, or mathematical concepts, claim 8 recites computer techniques for improving model performance and equipment operation through using a model to identify, and temporarily disable, malfunctioning devices.”
“Finally, claim 15 recites, "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, wherein the one or more of the model parameters are determined to have unreasonable values if the one or more of the model parameters are identified as outliers relative to other model parameters of the set of predictive models or deviate from expected values, base values, or ranges of values of the model parameters as a result of the comparing," "in response to determining that the source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have reasonable values that do not qualify as outliers relative to the other model parameters of the set of predictive models or do not deviate from the expected values, the base values, or the ranges of values of the model parameters," and "operating the building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the building using a predictive model including the one or more of the model parameters having the reasonable values, wherein adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have the reasonable values improves an accuracy of the predictive model by causing the predictive model to more accurately represent actual system dynamics of the at least one of the building zones corresponding to the predictive model." Emphasis added.”
“Claim 15 relates to improving the operation of building equipment in a building by determining the source of abnormal system dynamics and adjusting appropriate model parameters to improve operation of the building equipment. Therefore, even if claim 15 does involve certain methods of organizing human activity, or mathematical concepts, claim 15 recites computer techniques for improving the operation of building equipment through identifying the sources of abnormal system dynamics, and adjusting the appropriate model parameters to improve building equipment operation, not certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts.”
“The MPEP states, "[p]rong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP, 2106.04(II)(A)(2). Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Step 2A Prong Two for the reasons that follow.”
“The MPEP states, at 2106.04(d)(l), "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application ... [ o ]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Emphasis added. Furthermore, the MPEP states, "[i]n short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." Id “
“The claimed invention of claim 1 recites additional elements that improve computers and the technical fields of machine learning and equipment control by reciting computer techniques for identifying, and resolving, whether a predictive model is trained with training data not representative of current system dynamics. Paragraph [0200] of the present application discusses these improvements:”
[quoting paragraph [0200]]
“The claimed invention of claim 8 recites additional elements that improve computers and the technical fields of machine learning and equipment control by reciting computer techniques to improving model performance and equipment operation through using a model to identify, and temporarily disable, malfunctioning devices. Paragraphs [0204] of the present application discusses these improvements:”
[quoting paragraph [0204]]
“The claimed invention of claim 15 recites additional elements that improve computers and the technical fields of machine learning and equipment control by identifying the sources of abnormal system dynamics, and adjusting the appropriate model parameters to improve building equipment operation. Paragraphs [0196] of the present application discusses these improvements:”
[quoting paragraph [0196]]
“Applicant respectfully submits that the specification describes "the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art," MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), such that the technical improvements of claims 1, 8, and 15 would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
“Regarding Step 2B, the MPEP states that, "Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s))." MPEP 2106.5(11). Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Step 2B for the reasons that follow.”
“The MPEP states, "[a]nother consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry ... [t]his consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis." (MPEP,
2106.05(a)). Applicant respectfully submits that, "[a] factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element ( or combination of additional elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity" and "an examiner should determine that an element ( or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry." MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2), emphasis added.”
“The Office Action does not properly "evaluat[ e] those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception)." MPEP 2106.5(11), emphasis added. Applicant respectfully submits that, "[al factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element ( or combination of additional elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity" and "an examiner should determine that an element ( or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry." MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2), emphasis added.”
“Applicant respectfully submits that "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that at least one of the predictive models was generated using training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics, wherein the training data unrepresentative of the current system dynamics is determined as the source of the abnormal system dynamics if the training data was gathered prior to installing new building equipment that changes the system dynamics" "operating building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the building and updating the at least one of the predictive models using new training data generated by operating the building equipment, the new training data representative of the current system dynamics and improving an accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of updating the at least one of the predictive models using the new training data representative of the current system dynamics, thereby causing the at least one of the predictive models more accurately represent the current system dynamics," emphasis added, as recited in claim 1, is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations of independent claim I add a combination of additional elements that are not "well understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)).”
“Likewise, Applicant respectfully submits that "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is one or more malfunctioning devices of building equipment, wherein different model parameters of the set of predictive models are associated with different devices of the building equipment and the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment are determined by identifying which of the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing and selecting one or more devices of the building equipment associated with the model parameters determined to be abnormal as the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment" and "temporarily disabling the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment and operating other building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics ... preventing the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment from impacting the accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of malfunctioning during operation," emphasis added, as recited in claim 8, is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations of independent claim 8 add a combination of additional elements that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)).”
“Finally, Applicant respectfully submits that "determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, wherein the one or more of the model parameters are determined to have unreasonable values if the one or more of the model parameters are identified as outliers relative to other model parameters of the set of predictive models or deviate from expected values, base values, or ranges of values of the model parameters as a result of the comparing," "in response to determining that the source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have reasonable values that do not qualify as outliers relative to the other model parameters of the set of predictive models or do not deviate from the expected values, the base values, or the ranges of values of the model parameters," and "operating the building equipment to affect a variable state or condition of the building using a predictive model including the one or more of the model parameters having the reasonable values, wherein adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have the reasonable values improves an accuracy of the predictive model by causing the predictive model to more accurately represent actual system dynamics of the at least one of the building zones corresponding to the predictive model," emphasis added, as recited in claim 15, is not "well understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations of independent claim 15 add a combination of additional elements that are not "well understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2)).”
“Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter the Examiner notes that while the applicant has stated the Examiner’s previous comments as well as the PTAB comments are moot, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the prior Office Action the Board on page 6 of their decision, “We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a "practical application," as that phrase is used in the revised Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.” In this their analysis is not limited to previous claimed limitations but to their analysis of the specification as a whole. As such these statements are not moot as alleged. Further the Examiner notes that the limitations while amended also contain previously cited elements and as such the analysis of those elements is not considered moot.
While the applicant has argued that the claims cannot be reasonably interpreted as “merely applying the abstract idea on a computer” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above Claim 1 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that at least one of the predictive models was generated using training data unrepresentative of current system dynamics, wherein the training data unrepresentative of the current system dynamics is determined as the source of the abnormal system dynamics if the training data was gathered prior to installing new building equipment that changes the system dynamics”, “the new training data representative of the current system dynamics and improving an accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of updating the at least one of the predictive models using the new training data representative of the current system dynamics, thereby causing the at least one of the predictive models more accurately represent the current system dynamics”. These limitations outline what the data represents but does to establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result of the update is a more accurate model. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is one or more malfunctioning devices of building equipment, wherein different model parameters of the set of predictive models are associated with different devices of the building equipment and the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment are determined by identifying which of the model parameters are determined to be abnormal as a result of the comparing and selecting one or more devices of the building equipment associated with the model parameters determined to be abnormal as the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment” and “wherein temporarily disabling the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment improves an accuracy of at least one of the predictive models corresponding to the at least one of the building zones exhibiting the abnormal system dynamics by preventing the one or more malfunctioning devices of the building equipment from impacting the accuracy of the at least one of the predictive models as a result of malfunctioning during operation”. These limitations outline what the data represents specifically malfunctioning devices and preventing those devices from operating. The limitations however do not establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result of the prevention is a more accurate model. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 has been further amended to recite “determining a source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, wherein the one or more of the model parameters are determined to have unreasonable values if the one or more of the model parameters are identified as outliers relative to other model parameters of the set of predictive models or deviate from expected values, base values or ranges of values of the model parameters as a result of the comparing;”, “in response to determining that the source of the abnormal system dynamics is that one or more of the model parameters have unreasonable values, adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have reasonable values that do not qualify as outliers relative to the other model parameters of the set of predictive models or do not deviate from the expected values, the base values, or the ranges of values of the model parameters” and “wherein adjusting the one or more of the model parameters to have the reasonable values improves an accuracy of the predictive model by causing the predictive model to more accurately represent actual system dynamics of the at least one of the building zones corresponding to the predictive model”. These limitations outline what the data represents specifically unreasonable values. The limitations however do not establish how the models are more accurately other than to state the end result is adjusting the values to have more reasonable values to make it more accurate. As such this continues to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further this is consistent which the current guidance from the Office in that merely updating a model or machine learning is not sufficient to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
From this when considered individually and in ordered combination do not amount to rending the abstract idea into a practical application. As stated in the rejection the limitations merely recite the functions and describe the data without establishing how the limitations in combination achieve the result. The Examiner also notes this is consistent with the current guidance from the Office as merely updating data or implementing functions is not enough to render the abstract idea into a practical application.
As previously stated in the prior Office Action, while the applicant again has argued that the claims improve the function of the building control system the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above each the independent claims recites different functions which each are used to achieve the same goal of improved accuracy. As stated above the limitations merely recite different functions but fail to recite any specifics as to how the functions are performed to achieve the result of improved accuracy and the improvement the applicant has argued, specifically improved functioning. The functioning cannot be established as the specifics of how the functions are performed has not be recited. As such these limitations fail to render the abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant has further described the data and restated that this results in the improved accuracy of the system, however the limitations fail to establish how accuracy is improved.
The cited paragraphs [0166] establish that there are different embodiments and that certain model parameters can be associated with different aspects of the system and therefore different corrective actions. But the claims fail to establish how the association and determinations from those associations are made. Paragraphs [0184]-[0185] also fail to establish how the inaccuracy and unreasonable values are determined and adjustments are determined. Again this is merely establish the function without any specifics. Paragraph [0200] establishes examples of how the data could have changed over time and need to be updated, however this is a non-limiting and doesn’t establish how the amended claims would cover any possible change or alteration. Paragraph [0204] like the other paragraphs outlines the functions but fails to establish any additional detail as to how the functions are achieved for the scope of the limitations as claimed.
While the applicant has argued that the specification should be evaluated to determine if the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, the Examiner notes as shown above the limitations amount to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer and as such is not considered to be an improvement or a practical application. While the applicant has argued that the improvement would have been apparently to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner notes that this is merely an allegation and as such is not persuasive. This is also commensurate with the current guidance from the Office which establishes that such statements are not enough to establish that the limitations are an improvement.
The Examiner also notes that the rejections do establish if there are any additional elements. As stated above the claims do not contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As far as the Step 2B considerations the Examiner has addressed this in the 101 rejections both in the current Office Action and the prior Office Actions. Step 2(b) considers the additional elements of the independent claims with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As noted above there are not additional elements which indicate that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above the limitations are considered to be part of the abstract idea and merely applying that abstract idea on a computer, as such Step 2B has been considered and this is consistent with the current Office guidance.
Lacking any additional arguments the Examiner has not been persuaded and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drees et al. (US 2012/0022700 A1) – discusses updating and storing new performance values during a new training period.
Zhang et al. (US 2020/0379417 A1) – discusses updating the models once additional training data is gathered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571)272-8878. 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.
PAUL R. FISHER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2498
/PAUL R FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498 3/21/2026