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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/29/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 22, the specification and original claims, and the drawings, do not provide support for claiming that the conflict is determined when there is electromagnetic interference at the fire control panel. This subject matter is not found in the drawings or the original claims. It is not clear to the examiner where support can be found for this limitation as the applicant has not provided any showing of where support can be found. This is new matter that is not supported by the specification as originally filed.
For claim 23, the specification as originally filed does not disclose that the conflict is determined when a position of a sprinkler is not within a predetermined distance of another sprinkler. While the specification does mention that the system can be used with sprinklers, this intended use disclosure does not provide support for what is being claimed. This is new matter that is not supported by the original specification, original claims, or the original drawings.
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 1-4, 7-14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of being able to visualize building systems using a 3-D depiction, so that conflicts with building systems and other issues relating to building components can be identified and remedied.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 11, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
access a plurality of building structural data, ductwork layout data, and fire suppression system layout data associated with a building;
wherein the ductwork layout data comprises a first model output by a ductwork design tool that defines sizes and locations of components of ductwork to be installed in the building relative to location data from the building structural data, and
the fire suppression system layout data comprises a second model output by a fire suppression system design tool that defines sizes and locations of a plurality of components of fire suppression system to be installed in the building relative to the location data from the building structural data;
identify a location of a user device within the building;
create an overlay image comprising a three-dimensional depiction of a portion of a ductwork layout and a fire suppression system layout based on an overlay of the ductwork layout data and the fire suppression system layout data with respect to the building structural data and the location of the user device
in a conflict detection mode of operation:
identify a routing conflict in at least one of (1) the ductwork layout, (2) the fire suppression system layout, and (3) between the ductwork layout and the fire suppression system layout: and
output a notification of the routing conflict as a message sent to another
in a diagnostic mode of operation:
receive a diagnostic notification from a building monitoring system [ configured to receive diagnostic and control data from a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) control unit of an HVAC system corresponding to the ductwork layout data and a fire control panel of a fire suppression system corresponding to the fire suppression system layout data; wherein the fire control panel is configured to monitor the status of the plurality of components of fire suppression system and perform a diagnostic test of the plurality of components of the fire suppression system ]
map the diagnostic notification to a service location in the building; and
modify the overlay image with an indicator to highlight the diagnostic notification at the service location so as to identify the location of the component that failed the diagnostic test
The above limitations are reciting a process by which building data is being retrieved and used to visualize a layout for ductwork and/or a fire suppression system of a building, so that any problems or conflicts with the building systems can be identified when a user is inspecting the building. The concept of inspecting a building for any problems with building systems and obtaining diagnostic data, providing a visualization of a ductwork and a fire suppression system, is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. The abstract idea represents a commercial practice that can also be characterized as satisfying a legal obligation (compliance with building codes and following building plans, etc.) such as is performed manually by building inspectors. The claimed data can be accessed by a person looking up data manually. Identifying the location of a user can be done by people manually. The identification is broadly recited and does not recite that the user device is even involved in this step (the user device is an additional element). An overlay image can be manually generated and used to identify any conflicts as claimed by people looking at the image to determine a conflict. A person can map diagnostic notifications to a location and provide an indicator as claimed by manually providing one on the overlay image. The point the examiner is trying to make is that the claimed elements are reciting steps taken to ensure that the plans for a building are correct and that no conflicts exist between a fire suppression system and ductwork, and that identifies a location of where diagnostic data came from. The concept of inspecting a building for any problems with building systems (as defined by the above noted claimed elements) is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claims 1, 11, the additional elements to the claim are the communication interface, memory system that is storing the executable instructions that are performing the steps that define the abstract idea, the processing system, the user device, and the act of outputting the image to a display component.
Note: The building monitoring system is not part of the claim scope because all that is recited is the receiving of the diagnostic information, not the building system sending it.
With respect to the limitations directed to the fire control panel that is included in brackets above, the examiner notes that the claim is reciting the functions of the claimed processing system, and the receiving of a diagnostic notification from the building monitoring system that is configured to do what is claimed, is not reciting that the building monitoring system, the HVAC control unit, and/or the fire control panel of a fire suppression system is part of the claimed system. The claim scope is limited to the processing system and the functions is performs.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amounts to the use of a computing device with a processor, communication interface, user device, and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) in combination with the act of outputting the image to a display, which is an insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor that can communicate data, and that has a memory and using a display component to provide for an output of the visual representation. Any and all data processing operations inherently involve an output of a result so the limitation of outputting the image to a display component is taken as an insignificant extra solution activity that does not represent more than mere data display (a post solution activity). These elements are indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor, communication interface, and memory to perform the steps that define the abstract idea in combination with the well understood routine and conventional act of using a display to output data to a user. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(d). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also largely applicable to step 2B. The processing system and memory system are merely linking the abstract idea to computer implementation, and the act of displaying data is something that is a basic and fundamental computer function that is very well understood, routine, and conventional in the computing field. Data display using a display component is not something that is unconventional in nature and that would be doing more than linking the output step to computer implementation. This does not amount to claiming significantly more.
For claims 2, 12, reciting that the display component includes a display screen is reciting an additional element; however, as stated above for claim 1, the mere use of a display screen to output an image is a link to computer technology and amounts to an insignificant extra solution activity that is also well understood in the computing field. No additional element is claimed that would change the eligibility analysis from that set forth for claim 1.
For claims 3, 13, the applicant is reciting the additional element of using augmented reality to assist in visualizing the image. This is a link to a particular technological environment and is not sufficient to render the claim eligible. The applicant is just claiming the use of AR with no specificity on how the display works or is structured. This is just a general link to AR technology in a broad sense. The recitation to AR is a link to a particular technological environment that does not represent a meaningful limit on the claim scope, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
For claims 4, 14, the applicant recites the use of a holographic projector as the output component as opposed to the use of a display. As was set forth for claim 3, this element is taken as a general link to using a hologram and is recited in a broad and non-limiting manner. Simply linking the output of the image to a holographic projector with nothing else being claimed is nothing more than a link to a particular technological environment for the output step that is simply using a holographic projector for what they are made for, namely for projecting holographs.
For claims 7-9, 17-19, the scaling of the image is part of the abstract idea. Also, what is claimed can be interpreted as a general link to using augmented reality technology where information is overlaid onto an image. At most this amounts to a general link to using AR technology and is taken as a link to a particular technological environment as was stated for claim 3.
For claims 10, 20, the applicant is reciting that the overlay image is adjusted as the user moves around. This is by definition was the use of AR allows for. Claim 10 is linking the execution of the abstract idea to augmented reality just like was noted for claim 3. The broadly worded recitation to AR is a link to a particular technological environment that does not represent a meaningful limit on the claim scope, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
For claims 21-23, the claimed determining the conflict when measured airflow deviates from an expected airflow…, determining the conflict when the layout generates electromagnetic interference at the fire control panel, and determining a conflict when a position of sprinklers is not within a predetermined distance of another of the sprinklers are elements that are considered to be part of the abstract idea. These elements are directed to the data processing part of the claim that is part of the abstract idea. A person can use received data regarding airflow and electromagnetic interference and distances to determine a conflict as claimed. What is claimed is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea as recited in claim 1. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration.
Therefore, for the above reasons Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, 17-20, 23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugden et al. (20170053042) in view of Piccolo, III (20170091998).
For claims 1-4, 11-14, Sugden teaches a computerized building management system that provides a user with an augmented reality display of layout information for various components of a building. The system includes a memory system and a processing system as claimed, see figure 14 and paragraph 024 that discloses the computing device and memory that stores building data. Sugden teaches that information about the layout of structural, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building can be recorded and used by the system when projecting or augmenting a display with the layout information. This satisfies the claimed accessing of the plurality of building structural data, and other layout data relating to the building systems. The applicant should note that the language describing the accessed data as being data output by a ductwork design tool and a fire suppression design tool is not claiming the tools in the claim scope, all that is occurring is the claimed data is being accessed. This is satisfied by Sugden accessing of the plurality of building structural data, and other layout data relating to the building systems (with the exception of the fire suppression data that is addressed below as being obvious). Paragraph 057 discloses that beams, fixtures, structural elements, plumbing, and electrical components can be visualized by the system. Also see paragraph 075 that also discloses the use of the system for HVAC equipment in a building (this inherently includes ducting for heating/ventilation systems). Paragraph 020 discloses that a display screen is used to provide a user with an augmented reality display that can provide overlays of building layout information to a user while they are viewing the structure in real time through a mobile device. This includes displaying structure of the building that is hidden from view, including by use of a hologram that is projected on to the surface of the structure, see paragraph 021. The use of holograms and augmented reality is further discussed in paragraphs 029 and 031. The location of a user device is determined as claimed, see paragraph 034. This satisfies the determining of the location of a user device within the building.
Not expressly disclosed by Sugden is that the system can be used to visualize fire suppression system layout data. Sugden teaches building systems such as beams, fixtures, structural elements, plumbing, and electrical components, and HVAC systems, but does not expressly teach that the building system includes a fire suppression system. Also, not expressly disclosed is identifying a routing conflict between the ductwork and a fire suppression system and the output of a notification.
Not disclosed by Sugden is receiving a diagnostic notification from a building monitoring system and mapping the notification to a location in the building and outputting an indicator to highlight the notification at the location.
With respect to using the system of Sugden with fire suppression layout data, Piccolo teaches an augmented reality system that assists a user with inspecting a building’s fire suppression and security systems. Piccolo teaches that an augmented reality display can be used to provide information to a user about fire and security systems in a building, including visualization of building components that are not visible because they are behind a wall, see paragraphs 025, 028, 046. This reference teaches the desirability of using an AR system to visualize and monitor fire suppression systems of a building, similar to how Sugden is using AR to visualize other types of building components/systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sugden with the further ability to use the system to visualize the layout of fire suppression system layout data of a building. This would be desirable so that a user of the system of Sugden can be provided with a visualization of a fire suppression system just like is being done for the structural, electrical, and plumbing systems of a building. This is just using Sugden to visualize another well-known component of a building, which is the fire suppression system, as taught by Piccolo, to achieve predictable results.
With respect to the claimed routing conflict determination, the examiner notes that in paragraph 059 Sugden teaches that the system allows for a conflict to be determined, such as identifying that a structural element of the building is located where a door is supposed to go. The system of Sugden allows for visualization of building systems (including behind walls) so that problems and conflicts between building systems can be identified. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sugden with the ability to determine a conflict between a fire suppression system and ductwork, so that any conflicts between the placement of the ductwork and fire system can be remedied, just like one can identify that a structural part of a building is behind a proposed location for a door. This would have been obvious to provide to Sugden. It also would have been obvious to output a notification that addresses the fact that the ductwork and fire suppression system are in conflict, so that others are made aware of the situation so it can be remedied. The claimed output of the notification as a message to another system is taught by Sugden disclosing that once a user has created a note that indicates a conflict with building systems, a message is sent to a database for storage so that others can view the conflict information, see paragraph 061.
With respect to the claimed receiving a diagnostic notification from a building monitoring system and mapping the notification to a location in the building and outputting an indicator to highlight the notification at the location, Piccolo teaches that the system can be used to receive notifications from building systems, see paragraph 059 where it is disclosed that real time event data from fire sensors and other types of devices can be overlaid on the display. Also disclosed is that the location of the user is determined, so that directions can be given to the user to go to a location that is in need of servicing, etc.. For claim 1, for claim interpretation, the HAVC control unit of the HVAC system and the fire control panel are not positively recited as part of the system. All that is claimed is the receiving of a diagnostic notification. Where the notification comes from and what the sending device is configured to do, is not part of the claim scope as the claim is only reciting the function(s) performed by the processing system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sugden with the ability to receive a diagnostic notification from a building system, such as real time data from a fire sensor or other device, and to map the location to the notification so that a user can be directed to the location in the building with providing the information as an overlay, as taught by Piccolo. This would allow for real time data about building systems to be received in the system of Sugden so that a user can attend to any issues that might need to be addressed in real time. Both Sugden and Piccolo are directed to use of AR for visualizing building systems for an inspection and simply providing Sugden with the ability to receive a diagnostic notification from a building system, and to map the location to the notification and outputting an indicator as claimed, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the analogous art to Piccolo.
For claims 7-9, 17-19, the claimed scaling of the ductwork layout and fire suppression system in the overlay image is reciting an inherent aspect to augmented reality in Sugden, which is that the shapes and layouts of items are scaled to the real life view that the user is looking at as is shown in the figures. When one is visualizing building components/systems as is being done in Sugden, the process inherently involves scaling so that the images are made to be in agreement with the real life environment so that windows or doors or other components (HVAC) are able to be viewed as if they are part of the real environment. What is claimed is considered to be inherent to Sugden and the use of AR to overlay building components in a display. For claims 8 and 9, the language of “to project” onto a surface is reciting the intended use for the scaling step and is also satisfied by what is disclosed by Sugden.
For claims 10, 20, the applicant recites that the overlay image is adjusted as the user moves about. This is reciting what augmented reality is by definition. As a user moves around a building, the system of Sugden detects the location of the user and coordinates the overlaid data to the location and orientation of the user. The applicant is reciting a feature that is part of augmented reality and how it work. This is satisfied by Sugden.
For claim 23, not expressly disclosed is that the conflict is determined when a sprinkler is not within a certain distance of another sprinkler. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that spacing for sprinklers in building is something that is mandated by building codes, and is something that is defined by the National Fire Protection association standard 13. Spacing for sprinklers is something that is mandated by building codes and is something that one of ordinary skill in the art would fully appreciate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sugden with the ability to receive sprinkler positions so that it can be determined if the location and spacing of the sprinklers create a conflict, such as by being spaced too far apart. This would have yielded predictable results of allowing one use Sugden with sprinkler system to monitor their spacing so that code compliance can be ensured.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugden et al. (20170053042) in view of Piccolo, III (20170091998) in view of Orsini et al. (20150096351).
For claim 21, not disclosed by the combination of Sugden in view of Picolo is that the conflict is determined when an airflow at ductwork deviates from an expected value by a predetermined value.
Orsini discloses a building monitoring system that can receive airflow information from a ductwork sensor, see paragraph 002 and 033. If the airflow does not meet or exceed a threshold value, then a notification is sent out. This is done so that one can test and monitor ductwork for any problems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sugden with the ability to receive airflow data regarding ductwork, so that if measured airflow is found to be deficient as compared to expected values (threshold) a notification is sent out by the building monitoring system to the system of Sugden. This would yield predicable results of allowing one to test and measure ductwork airflow for a conflict, such as no airflow. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the reply that the additional elements of accessing the building structural data, ductwork layout data, and fire suppression layout data, identifying a location of a user, creating an overlay image, identifying a routing conflict in one of the three claimed situations (1-3), and performing a diagnostic test, provide for integration into a practical application. This is not persuasive because the claimed element that have been argued are those that are defining the abstract idea. The elements being argued are not additional elements. The manner in which the routing conflict is determined, or the situation as far as the conflict being between ductwork and a fire suppression system, this is part of the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive for this reason and amounts to little more than a general allegation. The fact that the claimed invention is computer implemented by executing instructions stored in memory is arguing an additional element; however, this is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea using computers, and does not provide for integration or significantly more. The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
On page 9 the applicant refers to the updated USPTO AI guidance and argues that the claims might involve an abstract idea, but they do not recite an abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive for the pending claims. At step 2A, the claims are considered to be reciting a process by which building data is being retrieved and used to visualize a layout for ductwork and/or a fire suppression system of a building, so that any problems or conflicts with the building systems can be identified when a user is inspecting the building. The concept of inspecting a building for any problems with building systems and obtaining diagnostic data, providing a visualization of a ductwork and a fire suppression system, is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. The abstract idea represents a commercial practice that can also be characterized as satisfying a legal obligation (compliance with building codes and following building plans, etc.) such as is performed manually by building inspectors. The concept of inspecting a building for any problems with building systems (as defined by the claimed elements identified by the examiner at step 2A) is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. The claims do recite an abstract idea as this term is defined in the PEG for step 2A. No other argument is presented for the 101 rejection. The 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is not persuasive. On pages 10-11 the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed, with a cut and paste of the limitations that are recited in the claims. The applicant argues that Sugden is silent as to performing a diagnostic test of a component of a fire suppression system. This is not persuasive. The receiving of a diagnostic notification (just a notification) has been addressed from a combination of Sugden in view of Picolo. The combination results in a notification being received from a building system that satisfies what is claimed. The content of the notification does not receive weight and the claimed fire control panel is not a positively recited element to the system. All that the claim requires is that a diagnostic notification be received. There is no building monitoring system in the claim scope and there is no fire control panel in the scope of claim 1. As to the argument about passive versus active tests, this is not persuasive with respect to the actual claim scope.
Additionally, the combination results in a notification being received from a building monitoring system anyway. Piccolo teaches that a system can be used to receive notifications from building systems, see paragraph 059 where it is disclosed that real time event data from fire sensors and other types of devices can be overlaid on the display. Also disclosed is that the location of the user is determined, so that directions can be given to the user to go to a location that is in need of servicing, etc.. For claim 1, for claim interpretation, the HAVC control unit of the HVAC system and the fire control panel are not positively recited as part of the system. All that is claimed is the receiving of a diagnostic notification. Where the notification comes from and what the sending device is configured to do, is not part of the claim scope as the claim is only reciting the function(s) performed by the processing system. When combined, the resulting combination results in a notification being received in Sugden that is from a building monitoring system that is receiving data from sensors in a building. This aspect of the argument is not persuasive.
The arguments for new claims 21-23 are moot based on the grounds of rejection that is necessitated by the addition of the new claims. The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101, claims 21 and 23 are rejected in view of prior art, and claims 22, 23, contain new matter that is being rejected under 35 USC 112, 1st.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626