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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to communications received 8/27/2025, Applicant,
on 12/18/2025, amended claim 1. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the art rejection remains and is updated below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 arguments, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the amended claim language, “where the deviation value for each of the factors is a change between at least one value of the data received from the plurality of data sources and the benchmark value” (see Remarks at pgs. 9-10). However, Examiner notes that this argument is now moot, as the 103 rejection is now updated as being unpatentable over Granger et al. (US Patent Application Publication, US 2020/0200416, hereinafter referred to as Granger) in view of Mackay (Us Patent Application Publication, 2011/0137853) in further view of Hedley et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2010/0286937, hereinafter referred to as Hedley). See the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granger et al. (US Patent Application Publication, US 2020/0200416, hereinafter referred to as Granger) in view of Mackay (Us Patent Application Publication, 2011/0137853) in further view of Hedley et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2010/0286937, hereinafter referred to as Hedley).
As per Claim 1, Granger discloses a building management enterprise system comprising: a display device; one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media communicably coupled to the one or more processors having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors (Granger: Fig. 2-3), cause the one or more processors to:
a) identify one or more factors for evaluating economic effectiveness of an enterprise comprising a plurality of physical nodes (Granger: ¶0197: Measurements from sensors of a plurality of physical are received with operational parameters and target operational parameters for the built environment enterprise and are used to identify the effectiveness of the nodes.);
b) receive data associated with each of the factors from a plurality of data sources for each of the nodes, the plurality of data sources including at least one sensor located in each of the nodes, the sensor configured to sense a physical condition that affects the one or more factors (Granger: ¶0161-0162: Sensors are installed in a variety of locations within the built structure. If the built structure has different zones, at least one sensor is generally located in each of the controllable zones. As The sensors may detect, for example, lighting intensity and wavelength, ambient temperature, and air quality. Air quality typically includes the air-born contents of the air. In other embodiments, the sensors also may be configured to detect humidity levels and air flow, among other aspects.);
f) perform an automated action based on the effectiveness score, the automated action including adjusting an operation of HVAC equipment, lighting equipment, or security equipment that serve the nodes, wherein adjusting the operation of at least one of HVAC equipment, lighting equipment, or security equipment affects the physical condition sensed by the sensor, which affects future values with the factors used to calculate the effectiveness score (Granger: ¶0261: After scoring the effectiveness of interventions and sets of interventions, one or more interventions may be selected to be implemented. See ¶0177, 0180 and 183 where examples of implemented intervention actions may be adjusting the HVAC system, lighting, temperature, etc. wherein built-in sensors measure quality metrics over time.).
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Mackay discloses:
c) compare the data received from the plurality of data sources with the benchmark value for each of the factors to determine a deviation value for each of the factors, wherein the deviation value for each of the factors is a change between at least one value of the data received from the plurality of data sources and the benchmark value (Mackay: ¶0090-0092; An event analysis module can analyze building management system event information retrieved from a plurality of sources (e.g. subsystems, equipment, etc.). The event information may be compared to the performance indexes [benchmark value] to detect changes [deviation value] (e.g. state change values, sudden change values, etc.) associated with the equipment experiencing a performance issue. See ¶0096 where various factors are individually analyzed for performance deviations or changes of an equipment (e.g. hours of time running, fan speed, etc.).);
d) calculate an effectiveness score for each of the factors by translating the deviation value into the effectiveness score using a predetermined relationship between the deviation value and the effectiveness score for each of the factors (Mackay: ¶0096: An overall effectiveness or performance score may be calculated for an analyzed equipment by aggregating the indication of change of the event data to the individual performance index values.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Mackay’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark standards because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring equipment for effectiveness, and because incorporating Mackay’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark standards in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of analyzing sensor data to identify problems and determine necessary interventions (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Hedley discloses:
e) control the display device to display one or more performance indicators associated with the effectiveness score for each of the nodes (Hedley: ¶0179 and 0258-0259: A user interface provides an interactive framework for viewing dashboards and reports for presenting scorecards and recommendations. Scores may be calculated in a scorecard for each building operation by comparing them against the key performance indicator for that operation. See Fig. 8A for an example scorecard.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring energy resources, and because incorporating Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of efficiently improving the well-being of an environment by assessing and intervening in problems in the built environment’s feasibility, cost, and timeliness (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more factors include revenue, energy efficiency, equipment efficiency, waste management, and regulatory compliance (Granger: ¶0028 and ¶0058-0060: Factors and parameters analyzed and addressed by the invention include energy efficiency, equipment efficiency, waste management, and regulatory compliance. See ¶0160 where revenue is a factor addressed.).
As per Claim 3, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data sources further include at least one sales data repository, enterprise resource planning repository, equipment maintenance repository or regulatory compliance repository (Granger: Fig. 4 and ¶0143: A plurality of data repositories are available for storing sales data, ERP data equipment maintenance and compliance data.).
As per Claim 4, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to calculate a weightage for each of the one or more factors based on one or more priorities of the enterprise (Granger: ¶0248-0252: A problem factor for an equipment (e.g. HVAC system) may have more than one factor given different weightage depending on the priority ranking for each factor.).
As per Claim 5, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 4, wherein each of the one or more factors contribute to the effectiveness score based on the weightage for each of the one or more factors (Granger: ¶0248-0252: A problem factor for an equipment (e.g. HVAC system) may have more than one factor given different weightage depending on the priority ranking for each factor. See ¶0256-0257 where the weighted factors determine an intervention effectiveness score.).
As per Claim 6, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 5, wherein each of the one or more factors include a plurality of sub-factors (Granger: ¶0248-0252: A problem factor for an equipment (e.g. HVAC system) may have more than one factor given different weightage depending on the priority ranking for each factor.).
As per Claim 9, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 1.
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Hedley discloses wherein the performance indicators are presented on an interactive dashboard, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of a node from among the plurality of nodes; and control the display device to display a detailed overview of the performance indicators for the selected node (Hedley: ¶0179-0180: The system user interface (UI) is a rich internet application (RIA) that provides an interactive framework for viewing dashboards and reports. The UI will present a holistic overview of facility performance by combining key items such as scorecards (See ¶0258 where the scorecard present assessed building operations by their key performance indicators), recommendations, alerts, and energy/ equipment data into a common format. The dashboard has three main views: trends, real-time monitoring, and analysis. Each has a set of customizable dashboard elements relevant to the specific view. The user can select the data elements he/she wishes to analyze on their dashboard dynamically by clicking on a list of available elements and dragging the element to the frame. This will allow comparison of similar equipment or facilities.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring energy resources, and because incorporating Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of efficiently improving the well-being of an environment by assessing and intervening in problems in the built environment’s feasibility, cost, and timeliness (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 10, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 9.
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Hedley discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of another node for comparing the performance indicators of the selected nodes; and control the display device to display a comparison of the performance indicators for the selected nodes (Hedley: ¶0179-0180: The system user interface (UI) is a rich internet application (RIA) that provides an interactive framework for viewing dashboards and reports. The UI will present a holistic overview of facility performance by combining key items such as scorecards (See ¶0258-0259 where the scorecard present assessed building operations against their key performance indicators), recommendations, alerts, and energy/ equipment data into a common format. The user can select the data elements he/she wishes to analyze on their dashboard dynamically by clicking on a list of available elements and dragging the element to the frame. This will allow comparison of similar equipment or facilities. See example key performance indicators in ¶0099-0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring energy resources, and because incorporating Hedley’s scoring and analyzes energy resources in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of efficiently improving the well-being of an environment by assessing and intervening in problems in the built environment’s feasibility, cost, and timeliness (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granger et al. (US Patent Application Publication, US 2020/0200416, hereinafter referred to as Granger) in view of Mackay (Us Patent Application Publication, 2011/0137853) in further view of Hedley et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2010/0286937, hereinafter referred to as Hedley) in even further view of Farahat et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, US 2017/0309094, hereinafter referred to as Farahat).
As per Claim 7, Granger in view of Mackay in further view of Hedley discloses the system of claim 6.
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Farahat discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a maximum score for each of the sub-factors, wherein a total sum of the maximum scores for the sub-factors correspond to the weightage of the factor (Farahat: See ¶0073-0077 where weights are used to normalize KPI values according to variables such as load value for particular sensed equipment. Each weight can be different for each equipment of its sub-factored components. See ¶0121-0123 where a composited of the sub-factored components scores are measured against a threshold to correspond to q cumulative probability of the equipment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Farahat’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark/KPI standards because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring equipment for effectiveness, and because incorporating Farahat’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark/KPI standards in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of analyzing sensor data to identify problems and determine necessary interventions (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Granger in view of in view of Mackay in further Hedley discloses the system of claim 1.
Granger does not explicitly disclose; however, Farahat discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: identify desired data for evaluating each of the one or more factors; compare the received data with the desired data to determine missing data; and control the display device to display a recommendation to configure one or more additional data sources to generate at least some of the missing data (Farahat: ¶0063: Sensor values of the analyzed equipment are assembled for evaluation and it is determined whether the received data has a majority of missing entries. A data cleaning process is performed to further assemble new sensor time series data into records with removed missing and outlier data. This data is displayed as shown in Table 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to
combine Granger with Farahat’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark/KPI standards because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward a platform for analyzing and measuring equipment for effectiveness, and because incorporating Farahat’s scoring of equipment and comparison to benchmark/KPI standards in Granger would have served Granger’s pursuit of analyzing sensor data to identify problems and determine necessary interventions (See Granger, Abstract) and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wenzel et al. (US 2014/0278165): A building's energy consumption may be modeled using weather data, utility billing data, or other data regarding the building. The resulting model data may be analyzed to detect a shift in the model data, which may indicate the presence of a fault condition. Changes to the model's coefficients that would result from an upgrade, energy conservation measure, or other action may also be used to predict the resulting Energy Star score for the building.
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 ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625