DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on March 10, 2026 has been considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, it is not clear whether the distributed execution platform is executed by the processor by reciting that the processor uses the distributed execution platform. Examiner interprets that the distributed execution platform is executed by the processor.
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 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea of “process data for multiple buildings” (evaluation data, mental process), “conditioning the collected data” (evaluation data, mental process), “determining equipment faults based on the conditioned collected data and one or more conditions that affect a fault state of the equipment, wherein the fault state of the equipment Indicates an operational condition of the equipment in which the collected data
exceeds a predefined threshold (evaluation data, mental process), aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of
the equipment at a particular time period faults, and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment even when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment (evaluation, mental process), “validating the determined equipment faults based on historical fault states for the particular
time period” (evaluation, mental process), “generating fault detection results including a fault description for at least some of the validated equipment faults automatically,
wherein the fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults
identifies a particular piece of equipment that is associated with the equipment fault” (evaluation/observation, mental process).
Claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea of “mark a number of continuous fault segments” (evaluation, mental process).
It is noted that the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor executing a routine, i.e., distributed execution platform) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The steps of collecting data from equipment, storing fault data, reporting fault data are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)). As discussed above, the steps of collecting data from equipment, storing fault data, reporting fault data are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims 2-6, 9-14, and 16-20 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 16-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-21 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,671,061 (Singh et al.) in view of Drees et al. (US 2011/0047418), Kuroiwa (US 2014/0156086), and Klancher et al. (US 2014/0244166). Singh et al. (‘061) claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method for fault detection in a building management system that includes equipment operating in an environment (claim 13), the method comprising:
collecting data from equipment of the building management system, wherein the collected data is based on an ontology of the equipment within the environment (claim 13, lines 3-4);
conditioning the collected data (claim 13, line 5);
determining equipment faults based on the conditioned collected data (claim 13, lines 6-8) and one or more conditions that affect a fault state of the equipment (the fault conditions are implied by the determining of equipment faults), wherein the fault state of the equipment indicates an operational condition of the equipment in which the
collected data exceeds a predefined threshold (claim 13, lines 6-8);
aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups of faults (claim 13, lines 10-11);
validating the determined equipment faults based on historical fault states
for the particular time period (claim 19);
generating a fault description for at least some of the equipment faults
automatically (claim 13, lines 13-14),
reporting at least some of the equipment faults along with the corresponding fault description (claim 13, lines 13-15).
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim the method is processed by a processor, Drees et al. discloses a processor (second controller/controllers) for processing a method (paragraph 0006, lines 1-5).
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim the method is processed by the processor using a distributed execution platform to process data for multiple buildings, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Kuroiwa, since Kuroiwa discloses a processor (central management device, paragraph 0003, line 4) using a distributed execution platform (local management devices, paragraph 0003, lines 1-2) to process data for multiple buildings (paragraph 0003, lines 1-4).
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim determining at least one symptom state of the equipment based on the equipment fault, wherein the symptom state is representation of at least one of functionality of the equipment and the environment, Drees et al. discloses determining at least one symptom state (fault type) of the equipment based
on the equipment fault, wherein the symptom state is representation of at least
one of functionality of the equipment (fault type of equipment, paragraph 0057, line 22, represents the functionality of the equipment).
It is noted that the symptom state is representation of at least one of functionality of the
environment is not required because it is recited in the alternative form.
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim aggregating, by the processor, the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of the equipment at a particular time period, and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment even when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment, Drees et al. discloses aggregating, by the processor, the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of the equipment
(paragraph 0057, lines 20-22) at a particular time period (paragraph 0057, line 22), and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment (the fault conditions are implied by the determining of equipment faults). Drees further discloses when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment (when equipment faults decrease equipment lifespans, paragraph 0003, lines 2-3, the equipment faults do not affect an actual building environment).
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim the fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults identifies a particular piece of equipment that is
associated with the equipment fault, Drees et al. discloses the fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults identifies a particular piece of equipment that is associated with the equipment fault (categorize faults by
equipment type, paragraph 0057, line 21).
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not expressly claim reporting, by the processor, at least some of the fault detection results along with the corresponding fault description to determine that the particular piece of equipment requires at least maintenance or
repair, it would have been obvious to provide reports by the processor, in view of Drees et al., of fault detection results for a user to determine whether the equipment requires either maintenance or repair.
While Singh et al. (‘061) does not claim storing, by the processor, historical fault states of the equipment for the particular time period in a distributed store of the distributed execution platform, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Klancher et al., since Klancher et al. discloses storing, by the processor (paragraph 0022, lines 1-2), historical fault states of the equipment (18) for the particular time period in a distributed store of the distributed execution platform (utility equipment, paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 3, aggregating equipment faults further comprises
marking a number of continuous fault segments (claim 13, lines 11-12).
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,175,686 (Singh et al.) in view of Drees et al. (US 2011/0047418), Kuroiwa (US 2014/0156086), and Klancher et al. (US 2014/0244166). Singh et al. (‘686) claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method for fault detection in a building management system that includes equipment operating in an environment (claim 12), the method comprising:
collecting data from equipment of the building management system, wherein the collected data is based on an ontology of the equipment within the environment (claim 12, lines 7-8);
conditioning the collected data (claim 12, lines 13-14);
determining equipment faults based on the conditioned collected data (claim 12, lines 15-17) and one or more conditions that affect a fault state of the equipment (the fault conditions are implied by the determining of equipment faults), wherein the fault state of the equipment indicates an operational condition of the equipment in which the collected data exceeds a predefined threshold (claim 12, lines 15-17);
aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups of faults (claim 12, lines 22-23);
validating, by the processor, the determined equipment faults based on
historical fault states for the particular time period (claim 12, lines 19-21; claim 13);
generating a fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults automatically (claim 12, lines 26-27); and
reporting at least some of the equipment faults along with the corresponding fault description (claim 12, lines 26-29).
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim the method is processed by a processor, Drees et al. discloses a processor (second controller/controllers) for processing a method (paragraph 0006, lines 1-5).
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim the method is processed by the processor using a distributed execution platform to process data for multiple buildings, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Kuroiwa, since Kuroiwa discloses a processor (central management device, paragraph 0003, line 4) using a distributed execution platform (local management devices, paragraph 0003, lines 1-2) to process data for multiple buildings (paragraph 0003, lines 1-4).
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim determining at least one symptom state of the equipment based on the equipment fault, wherein the symptom state is representation of at least one of functionality of the equipment and the environment, Drees et al. discloses determining at least one symptom state (fault type) of the equipment based
on the equipment fault, wherein the symptom state is representation of at least
one of functionality of the equipment (fault type of equipment, paragraph 0057, line 22, represents the functionality of the equipment).
It is noted that the symptom state is representation of at least one of functionality of the
environment is not required because it is recited in the alternative form.
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim aggregating, by the processor, the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of the equipment at a particular time period, and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment even when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment, Drees et al. discloses aggregating, by the processor, the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of the equipment
(paragraph 0057, lines 20-22) at a particular time period (paragraph 0057, line 22), and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment (the fault conditions are implied by the determining of equipment faults). Drees further discloses when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment (when equipment faults decrease equipment lifespans, paragraph 0003, lines 2-3, the equipment faults do not affect an actual building environment).
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim the fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults identifies a particular piece of equipment that is
associated with the equipment fault, Drees et al. discloses the fault description for at least some of the determined equipment faults identifies a particular piece of equipment that is associated with the equipment fault (categorize faults by
equipment type, paragraph 0057, line 21).
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not expressly claim reporting, by the processor, at least some of the fault detection results along with the corresponding fault description to determine that the particular piece of equipment requires at least maintenance or
repair, it would have been obvious to provide reports by the processor, in view of Drees et al., of fault detection results for a user to determine whether the equipment requires either maintenance or repair.
While Singh et al. (‘686) does not claim storing, by the processor, historical fault states of the equipment for the particular time period in a distributed store of the distributed execution platform, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Klancher et al., since Klancher et al. discloses storing, by the processor (paragraph 0022, lines 1-2), historical fault states of the equipment (18) for the particular time period in a distributed store of the distributed execution platform (utility equipment, paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 2, aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups of faults based on a type of equipment that generated each of the determined equipment faults (claim 12, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 3, aggregating equipment faults further comprises marking a number of continuous fault segments (claim 12, lines 24-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
With regard to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Applicants “defers filing a terminal disclaimer until claims of the current application are allowed. Accordingly, the Applicant will address the non-statutory double patenting rejection once the claims of current application reach an allowable state.”
Examiner’s position is that until a terminal disclaimer is filed, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained as discussed above.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “that the one or more steps recited above in amended independent claim 1 cannot be performed or executed by the human mind and is not a method of organizing human activity, and therefore the claim is not directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner’s position is that one or more steps recited above can be performed by a human mind. For instance, conditioning the collected data (see specification, page 5, lines 6-10), determining equipment faults based on the conditioned collected data (see specification, page 5, lines 11-12, 18-19), aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups (see specification, page 5, lines 21-23), validating the determined equipment faults (see specification, page 8, lines 4-10) are directed to an abstract idea because it involves some form of evaluation. While the steps are recited in the claims to be performed by a processor executing distributed execution platform, it is noted that the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor executing a routine) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)). Further, as discussed above, storing fault data is directed to are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) under step 2A, prong 2 and the step is well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, has been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) under step 2B.
Applicants further argue “[t]he final outputs fault detection results that include descriptions of continuous fault segments and identification of particular equipment represent technical results that improve the functioning of computer-implemented building management fault detection by enabling scalable, automated, and efficient processing and presentation across heterogeneous inputs.”
Examiner’s position is that fault detection results, whether they include descriptions of continuous fault segments and identification of particular equipment represent technical results that improve the functioning of computer-implemented building management fault detection by enabling scalable, automated, and efficient processing and presentation across heterogeneous inputs, they are merely abstract data. The fault detection results are not integrated into a practical application. For example, performing a meaningful step (e.g., performing maintenance of the equipment) that is based on the fault detection results is not recited in the claims.
Applicants further argue “[t]he claims are directed toward enhancing the operational efficiency and scalability of multi-building automated fault detection systems through a structured, computer-implemented pipeline that: (i) conditions collected equipment data using a distributed execution platform configured to process data for multiple buildings; (ii) determines equipment faults via user-defined rules and thresholds executed on that distributed platform; (iii) aggregates symptom-based faults over a configurable detection window while applying additional operational conditions (e.g., weather, occupancy, events), including evaluations even when such conditions are not currently present; (iv) stores historical fault states in a distributed store of the distributed execution platform and validates newly determined faults against prior time periods; and (v) generates and reports machine-produced fault detection results that include equipment-specific descriptions (e.g., continuous fault segments) suitable for maintenance/repair workflows.”
Examiner’s position is that “using a distributed execution platform configured to process data for multiple buildings” is directed to an abstract idea because processing data involves some form of data evaluation. Storing and reporting fault data is directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering. It is noted that the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processor/distributed execution platform) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)). Performing maintenance/repair of equipment based of the fault detection is not recited in the claims.
Applicants further argue “[t]his pipeline is not a mere abstraction of data handling"; it is a technological solution that automates distributed processing, temporal state management, and results generation at scale across heterogeneous building systems, yielding reusable state and efficiency improvements in fault detection. (emphasis added)”
Examiner’s position is that the claims are directed to a mere abstraction of data handing (e.g., determining/aggregating equipment faults, storing historical faults, and reporting fault detections results). The abstract data can be used to determine that the particular piece of equipment requires maintenance or repair. However, performing equipment maintenance or repair based on the fault detection results is not recited in the claims.
Applicants further argue “the subject matter of claim 1 provides a computationally grounded and practically implemented solution to the challenges of multi-building automated fault detection and reporting. It is not a simple abstract idea but a technological architecture that improves system reliability, scalability, and operational efficiency in environments such as campus- or enterprise-scale building management platforms, where large volumes of heterogeneous operational data must be conditioned, analyzed, aggregated, validated historically, and reported at scale. See at least paragraphs [0009]-[0011], [0017], [0022]-[0026], [0027], [0033]-[0035], [0037], [0039], and [0043]-[0045] of the as-filed Specification. (emphasis added)”
Examiner’s position is that arguments that the claim limitations are directed to a technological improvement must be pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a)). According to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art”. The specification does identify prior technical problems pertaining to reliability, scalability, and operational efficiency and the details of an unconventional technical solution to overcome the technical problems, where the unconventional technical solution is expressed in the claims.
Applicants further argue “[[r]egarding Step 2B, even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying the Step 2A of such analysis, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not concede, the Applicant submits that elements of amended independent claim 1 provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the exception itself. … the subject matter of independent claim 1 provides an optimized technical solution by implementing a computer-implemented, distributed processing pipeline that (i) conditions collected equipment data using a distributed execution platform configured to process data for multiple buildings”.
Examiner’s position is that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the exception itself. A distributed processing pipeline that (i) conditions collected equipment data using a distributed execution platform configured to process data for multiple buildings is a conventional technical solution (see Hao et al US 2014/0365149, paragraph 0007; Wiemeyer et al. US 20100241245, claim 11; Kuroiwa US 2014/0156086, paragraph 0003).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions above.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method and system for fault detection in a building management system that includes equipment operating in an environment comprising aggregating using the distributed execution platform, by the processor, the determined equipment faults into groups based on the determined symptom state of the equipment at a particular time period, and the one or more conditions that affect the fault state of the equipment even when the fault state is not currently affecting an actual building environment (claims 1, 8, 15) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 21, 2026