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 July 27, 2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on July 27, 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because it appears claim 21 is cancelled but there is no status identifier indicating that it is cancelled. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
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 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.
Claim 1, it is unclear of the relationship between the processor and the distributed execution platform. Examiner interprets the processor to be of the distributed execution platform (see specification, page 4, last paragraph; claims 8, 15).
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 “conditioning the collected data” (evaluation data, mental process), “process data for multiple buildings” (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 threshold as defined by the user” (evaluation data, mental process), “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” (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 (e.g., processor) 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, receiving one or more inputs from a user, 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, receiving one or more inputs from a user, 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 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 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 receiving one or more user inputs from a user for defining a fault threshold, Drees et al. discloses a method of detecting faults using a threshold (paragraph 0004, lines 1-3), the threshold can be received as a user input (paragraph 0005, lines 1-4). Thus, Drees et al. discloses a threshold defined by a user input for detecting a fault.
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 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, 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 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 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 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 (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 threshold (claim 12, lines 15-17);
aggregating the determined equipment faults into groups of faults (claim 12, lines 22-23);
validating at 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 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 receiving one or more user inputs from a user for defining a fault threshold, Drees et al. discloses a method of detecting faults using a threshold (paragraph 0004, lines 1-3), the threshold can be received as a user input (paragraph 0005, lines 1-4). Thus, Drees et al. discloses a threshold defined by a user input for detecting a fault.
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 using the distributed execution platform 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 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 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 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 (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).
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
With regard to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Applicants “will submit a terminal disclaimer, if still needed, once allowable subject matter is otherwise agreed upon.
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 “each claim is now revised to further recite receiving as user input which is then applied to determine whether a fault condition exists. This is believed to position the claims more closely in alignment with Example 37 and claim 2 thereof in the 2019 PEG, in which a user input to establish a criteria for analysis is obtained and compared to data that a human mind cannot practically obtain or accumulate.”
Examiner notes that receiving one or more user inputs does not require a GUI in the claims. Even if it does, receiving one or more user inputs from a user is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claims are not indication of integration into a practical application merely because of the feature of receiving the user input. Likewise, in example 37, claim 2, receiving via GUI a user selection is also directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data. Claim 2 is further analyzed whether the claim recites a judicial exception. It has been determined that claim 2 does not recite a judicial exception because “the determining step” requires an action that cannot be practically applied in the mind. In particular, the claimed step of determining the amount use of each icon by tracking how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time cannot practically performed in the human mind. Thus, claim 2 being determined to not recite a judicial exception has nothing to do with receiving a user input/selection.
Applicants further argue “[t]he user input to set the threshold for fault identification adds "something more" analogous to the BASCOM case in which the user inputs to the filter, and outputting a filter specific to the particular user, made the claims patent eligible notwithstanding the abstract idea analysis.”
Examiner’s position is that the instant claims are not analogous to BASCOM, since the claims do not recite user inputs to the filter, and outputting a filter specific to the particular user. Rather, in the instant claims, receiving one or more user inputs merely gathers data to be used in an analysis step to determine equipment faults.
Applicants further argue “the "practical" aspect of the claims directly relates to the invention of the present case.”
Examiner’s position is that limitations that are indicative or not indicative of integration into a practical application are defined in MPEP 2105.05.
Applicants further argue “[i]n particular, a single processor or computing system at a site is not able to process and handle all of the different data, including various data types (hence conditioning), for example, in the BMS environment.”
Examiner notes that the claims recite one processor/distributed execution platform (where the one processor is of the distributed execution platform) is recited to process different data to perform the abstract idea. While the steps are recited in the claims to be performed by a processor of a 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, the claims do not preclude the data processing/abstract idea from being performed as a mental process with pen and paper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights