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 .
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-17 have overcome each and every rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous office action mailed on 07/23/2025. Therefore rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Claim 1-16 are allowed. There is no outstanding prior art rejection and 101 rejection.
Claim 17 is still rejected over prior art. Reason for rejection provided below.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 17 that neither in combination nor individually previously cited prior arts, Sloop et al. and Imani et al. teach claim 17. Applicant argued Sloop et al. does not teach to calculate wind infiltration using as external geometric model of the building’s surrounding but rather uses thermal response coefficients and predictive energy modelling using weather and usage data. Specifically Sloop does not capture surrounding buildings, architectural features, and landscapes. Applicant also argued Imani teachings are directed to internal airflow and HVAC control, not to generating and applying an external geometric model of the surrounding built environment to calculate wind infiltration from predicted weather. Static map imagery is not an external geometric model capable of calculating localized wind-driven infiltration as required by claim 17. Applicant argued even if Imani' s internal modeling were combined with Sloop's general use of weather, the combined teachings would still not disclose determining the indoor climate profile based on a wind infiltration result calculated from predicted weather and an external geometric model. Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but not found persuasive. Examiner’s answer provided below.
Cited prior art of record, Sloop et al. explicitly teaches based on building location and weather data and other thermal parameters such as thermal profile of the building and building internal model (grey envelope, [0050]), wind infiltration of the building is determined. Sloop et al. also teaches weather data surrounding the building as the external model along with inferring data from the physical structure of the building which can have building layout, external landscape and any other information related to the building as taught in [0016], [0030], [0035], [0036], [0038] and [0050]. Claim 17 does not recite how the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape affects the internal geometric model and wind infiltration calculation. Also there is no definition of the internal geometric model as well. There is no teaching away that building external data cannot be used when obtaining weather data for the building. The claim does not recite how the specifics of the external geometric model of the building is used or affects the wind infiltration calculation into the building rather than just reciting wind infiltration calculated based on external geometric model of the building and the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape.
Cited prior art of record, Imami teaches to determine HVAC control parameters based on internal geometric model (architectural floor plan of the building in view of [0027],[0010] and [0032]) and external geometric model such as building’s self view along with surrounding buildings and landscape surrounding the building. Claim 17 does not recite any details about how the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape are used or influence the calculation of the wind infiltration of the building. No specific definition of the external geometric model and the internal geometric model is also provided which will define how the external geometric model is dynamic instead of static as argued by applicant and how the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape affects the internal model of the building and the wind infiltration determination in addition external geometric model. Without any specific definition of external geometric model of an exterior of the building and the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape and the internal geometric model of the building, consideration of weather data, in addition to building’s self-view along with surrounding buildings and landscape surrounding the building teaches the external geometric model of the building and the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape.
Sloop et al. and Imani are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving area of controlling building energy usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of a
building management system to predict a performance of an energy consuming
component using gathered weather data, building internal model and determined
climate profile data as taught by Sloop et al. by applying the known technique of using
floor plan data and building's external data from google maps to efficiently control the
HVAC system of the building as taught by lmani as an improvement to the internal and external model of the building to yield predictable result for controlling the energy consuming component of building with reduced energy consumption curve of the
building as taught by lmani in [0010].
Applicant also argued neither in combination nor individually Sloop et al and Imani et al teach the newly amended limitation, performing mitigating action when the performance characteristic is determined to exceed a maximum performance value. Applicant argument is fully considered but in moot in view of previously cited reference Noboa et al. (US 20120259583 A1). Noboa et al. explicitly teaches in [0113] and [0155] when the predicted load of the building management system exceeds an upper control limit (maximum performance value) the building management system takes actions (mitigating actions) to bring the load to normal condition.
Noboa et al. is an analogous art because it in the same problem solving area of controlling building energy based on building energy usage.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of
a building management system to predict a performance of an energy consuming
component using gathered weather data, building internal model and determined
climate profile data as taught by combination of Sloop et al. and lmani by applying the known technique of comparing the performance to a threshold and if the performance exceeds the threshold, generate an alert or shed load as taught by Noboa et al. as an act of performing mitigating actions to bring the performance under the normal working condition as taught by Noboa et al. in [0113].
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Sloop et al. (US 20130190940 A1) in view of lmani (US 20130035794 A1) and
Noboa et al. (US 20120259583 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sloop et al. teaches, a method of managing the operation of at least one energy consuming component in a building (system for optimizing and controlling energy consumption in a building, [0007]), the method comprising:
calculating wind infiltration into the building based on predicted weather
data for the geographical location of the building and an external model of an
exterior of the building (the coefficient modeler determines wind infiltration based on
building location and weather data obtained from the coordinates representing location
of the building, [0016], [0030], [0035] and [0036]);
determining a climate profile (thermal profile) within the building based on
the wind infiltration into the building and an internal model (grey envelope, [0050])
of the building (" ... Based on this information, the modeler 206 determines a thermal
profile for the building. Using the thermal profile in conjunction with the weather
information for the location of the building. the current thermostat setting for the building.
and other data associated with the building (e.g. smart meter data1) the modeler 206
generates sets of thermal response coefficients based on the various characteristics
that affect the heating/cooling of the building (e.g. thermal mass solar loading and wind infiltration) and the amount of energy consumed by the heating/cooling apparatus at the
building ... ", [0036]); and
predicting a performance characteristic of the at least one energy consuming component based on the climate profile (based on the thermal profile and the weather data, the energy consumption of the heating/cooling apparatus (HVAC)
is predicted for each set of thermal coefficients and the predicted energy consumptions
of the HVAC system are ranked (performance based on climate profile) to determine
which set of thermal coefficients provide an efficient operation of the HVAC system
based on the weather data, wind infiltration, building model and temperature setpoints,
[0036] and [0038]).
Sloop et al. does not teach the details of internal geometric model and an
external geometric model of an exterior of the building and the surrounding buildings,
architecture and landscape and performing mitigating action when the performance characteristic is determined to exceed a maximum performance value. However, Sloop et al. explicitly teaches about the internal model of the building, the grey box system balancing the sensible energy of the entire indoor environment with the flow of energy through the envelope as taught in [0050] and [0035]. Sloop et al. also teaches weather data surrounding the building as the external model along with inferring data from the physical structure of the building which can have building layout, external landscape and any other information related to the building.
On the other hand, lmani teaches, internal geometric model (architectural floor
plan of the building used in addition to other information to determine HVAC control of
the building, [0027], [001 O] and [0032]) and external geometric model of an exterior
of the building and the surrounding buildings, architecture and landscape (building address from google maps shows the building's self-view along with
surrounding buildings and landscape surrounding the building2, [0027] and [0039]).
Sloop et al. and Imani et al. are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving area of controlling building energy usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of a
building management system to predict a performance of an energy consuming
component using gathered weather data, building internal model and determined
climate profile data as taught by Sloop et al. by applying the known technique of using
floor plan data and building's external data from google maps to efficiently control the
HVAC system of the building as taught by lmani as an improvement to the internal and
external model of the building to yield predictable result for controlling the energy
consuming component of building with reduced energy consumption curve of the
building as taught by lmani in [0010].
Neither in combination nor individually Sloop et al. and Imani et al. teach the details of performing mitigating action when the performance characteristic is determined to exceed a maximum performance value.
Noboa et al. teaches, performing mitigating action when the performance characteristic is determined to exceed a maximum performance value (threshold includes upper control limit for the performance of the building management system
controlling the HVAC apparatus. When the predicted load exceeds threshold, BMS takes actions such as initiating a diagnostic routine, sending a message to a technician or utility company or shed loads to bring the load to normal condition, [0113] and [0155]).
Noboa et al. is an analogous art because it in the same problem solving area of controlling building based on building energy usage.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of
a building management system to predict a performance of an energy consuming
component using gathered weather data, building internal model and determined
climate profile data as taught by combination of Sloop et al. and lmani by applying the known technique of comparing the performance to a threshold and if the performance exceeds the threshold, generate an alert or shed load as taught by Noboa et al. as an act of performing mitigating actions to bring the performance under the normal working condition as taught by Noboa et al. in [0113].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed. Reason for allowance was provided on the previous office action mailed on 07/23/2025.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Building model (grey envelope) in view of [0050]. There is no specific definition of internal geometric
model is provided on the claim.
Prosecution Insights