DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 11 August 2025. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 have been amended. Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 13-18 have been newly added. Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-18 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 11 August 2025, with respect to objected claims 2 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments filed on 11 August 2025. The objections of claims 2 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 11, filed 11 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments filed on 11 August 2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made as follows:
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0010996 A1 (hereinafter Carrieri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0052975 A1 (hereinafter Martin) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0049677 A1 (hereinafter Sayfan), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0132644 A1 (hereinafter Micalizzi), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0022700 A1 (hereinafter Drees), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0027061 A1 (hereinafter Curt), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0197852 A1 (hereinafter Dutta).
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 11, filed 11 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
As described in the application, aggregation node control addresses errors in data transmission, data load balancing and other network communication issues related to due the wireless transmission strength of an environment sensor device to an aggregation node. As such, the new limitations overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The newly added limitations provide dynamic assignment of environmental sensor devices to the aggregation nodes. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… aggregation node control addresses errors in data transmission, data load balancing and other network communication issues related to due the wireless transmission strength of an environment sensor device to an aggregation node.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements that amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); i.e. The Applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to identifying and displaying one or modes of operation and displaying one or more mechanical parts associated with a mode of operation if the mode of operation is a failure mode as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 7). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Examiner’s Note: The amendment to the specification filed on 11 August 2025 obviates the objection to the specification as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 February 2025. The Applicant has not set for the any remarks/arguments with respect to the specification.
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 16-18 stand objected to, claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 1, 6, 7, and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claims
The Examiner respectfully notes the Applicant has not provided claim 8 with a the proper status identifier. Claim 8 should have been indicated as “Currently Amended” in the claims filed on 11 August 2025.
MPEP 714:
II. MANNER OF MAKING AMENDMENTS UNDER 37 CFR 1.121
All amendments filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121 as revised in the notice of final rule making published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2003 at 65 Fed. Reg. 38611. The manner of making amendments has been revised to assist in the implementation of beginning-to-end electronic image processing of patent applications. Specifically, changes have been made to facilitate electronic image data capture and processing and streamline the patent application process. If an amendment filed on or after July 30, 2003 does not comply with revised 37 CFR 1.121, the Office will notify applicants via a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment that the amendment is not accepted.
The revised amendment practice is summarized as follows.
C. Amendments to the Claims
Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, including the deletion of an existing claim, or submission of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented (including previously canceled and non-entered claims) in the application. After each claim number, the status identifier of the claim must be presented in a parenthetical expression, and the text of each claim under examination as well as all withdrawn claims (each with markings if any, to show current changes) must be presented. The listing will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims in the application.
(A) Status Identifiers: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). The status identifier (withdrawn – currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended. See paragraph (E) below for acceptable alternative status identifiers.
Claims added by a preliminary amendment must have the status identifier(new) instead of (original), even when the preliminary amendment is present on the filing date of the application and such claim is treated as part of the original disclosure. If applicant files a subsequent amendment, applicant must use the status identifier (previously presented) if the claims are not being amended, or (currently amended) if the claims are being amended, in the subsequent amendment. Claims that are canceled by a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application are required to be listed and must have the status identifier (canceled) in the preliminary amendment and in any subsequent amendment.
The status identifier (not entered) is used for claims that were previously proposed in an amendment (e.g., after-final) that was denied entry.
In an amendment submitted in a U.S. national stage application, claims that were present on the international filing date or rectified pursuant to PCT Rule 91 must have the status identifier (original); claims that were amended or added under PCT Article 19 or 34 with effect in the U.S. national stage application must have the status identifier (previously presented); and claims that were canceled pursuant to PCT Article 19 or 34 with effect in the U.S. national stage application must have the status identifier (canceled). If the amendment submitted in the U.S. national stage application is making a change in a claim, the status identifier (currently amended) must be used for that claim.
For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn –currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled).
(B) Markings to Show the Changes: All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) with 2 exceptions: (1) for deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, double brackets may be used (e.g., [[eroor]]); (2) if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of number "4" or certain punctuation marks), double brackets must be used (e.g., [[4]]). As an alternative to using double brackets, however, extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 14 as). An accompanying clean version is not required and should not be presented. Only claims of the status "currently amended" or "withdrawn" will include markings. Any claims added by amendment must be indicated as "new" and the text of the claim must not be underlined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a grammatical issue in the limitation of “coordinating between among multiple aggregation nodes …” in line 5. Suggested claim language: “coordinating among multiple aggregation nodes …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites a formatting issue in limitation of “one or more network modules”. The limitation is indented under “a sensor control module comprising:” in line 12 rather than the limitation of “recording sensor data at the one or more environmental sensor devices, wherein the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises:” in lines 7-8. The limitation has been interpreted as “recording sensor data at the one or more environmental sensor devices, wherein the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises: … one or more network modules” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 13 recites a grammatical issue in the limitation of “… wherein assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node …” in line 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… wherein an assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 14 recites a grammatical issues in the limitation of “… wherein assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node is based on as signal strength …” in line 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… wherein an assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node is based on a signal strength …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 16 recites a grammatical issue in the limitation of “… wherein assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node …” in line 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… wherein an assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 17 recites a grammatical issues in the limitation of “… wherein assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node is based on as signal strength …” in line 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… wherein an assignment of an environmental sensor device to an aggregation node is based on a signal strength …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claims 16-18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 13-15, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising of a combination of steps, therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data”.
The limitation of “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment of data to recognize a type of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414526 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0074]) are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “machinery in an HVAC system”; “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating between among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “recording sensor data at the one or more environmental sensor devices, wherein the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises: a processor unit; a memory unit; a data storage unit; a sensor control module comprising: a temperature sensor; a humidity sensor; an occupancy sensor; an equivalent Carbon Dioxide sensor (eCO2); a total volatile organic compound sensor (TVOC); one or more particulate matter sensors; and one or more network modules”; “receiving at one or more aggregation nodes comprising an aggregation control unit, the sensor data recorded by the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “aggregating, at each aggregation node, the sensor data received by that aggregation node”; “transferring, to an application server, the aggregated data from each of the aggregation nodes”; “storing, at a database, the aggregated data”; “… a mechanical system …”; “displaying, on a client device, one or more modes of operation”; and “displaying one or more mechanical parts of the mechanical system associated with the mode of operation if the mode of operation is a failure mode”.
The limitations of “one or more aggregation nodes comprising an aggregation control unit”; “… an application server …”; “… a database …”; and “… a client device …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “machinery in an HVAC system” and “… a mechanical system …”
are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating between among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; and “… the one or more environmental sensor devices, wherein the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises: a processor unit; a memory unit; a data storage unit; a sensor control module comprising: a temperature sensor; a humidity sensor; an occupancy sensor; an equivalent Carbon Dioxide sensor (eCO2); a total volatile organic compound sensor (TVOC); one or more particulate matter sensors; and one or more network modules” are recited at a high level of generality and represent mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data is used in the abstract mental concept of “identifying”. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “recording sensor data …”; “receiving … the sensor data recorded by the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “aggregating … the sensor data received by that gateway device”; and “storing … the aggregated data” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “transferring” … the aggregated data from each of the gateway devices”; “displaying … one or more modes of operation”; and “displaying one or more mechanical parts of the mechanical system associated with the mode of operation if the mode of operation is a failure mode” represents mere data output. The “transferring” and “displaying” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more aggregation nodes comprising an aggregation control unit”; “… an application server …”; “… a database …”; and “… a client device …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitations of “machinery in an HVAC system” and “… a mechanical system …” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating between among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; and “… one or more environmental sensor devices …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “recording”; “aggregating”; and “storing”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “receiving” and “transferring”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitations of “displaying”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “for each of the first detectors and second detectors, reconstruct a set of time series data for a predetermined period of time prior to the first time based on the set of features”; “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”; “determining, based on the comparison, a reconstruction score for each of the first detectors and second detectors”; and “identifying a fault state based the reconstruction scores of one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, wherein, if one or more first detectors have a reconstruction scores below a first predetermined threshold and each of the second detectors have a reconstruction score below a second predetermined threshold, a new fault will be identified”.
The limitations of “for each of the first detectors and second detectors, reconstruct a set of time series data for a predetermined period of time prior to the first time based on the set of features”; “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”; and “determining, based on the comparison, a reconstruction score for each of the first detectors and second detectors” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414526 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0074]) are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing at least two pieces of information to observe a similarity/dissimilarity (e.g. difference). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying a fault state based the reconstruction scores of one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, wherein, if one or more first detectors have a reconstruction scores below a first predetermined threshold and each of the second detectors have a reconstruction score below a second predetermined threshold, a new fault will be identified”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to recognize a type of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving, at one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, a set of features corresponding to sensor data recorded at a first time, wherein the one or more first detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during normal operation and wherein the one or more second detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during faulty operation”.
The limitation of “… at one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, …, wherein the one or more first detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during normal operation and wherein the one or more second detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during faulty operation” is recited at a high level of generality and represents a mere means for data gathering. The use of the “… one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors …” is therefore an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “receiving … a set of features corresponding to sensor data recorded at a first time …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… at one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, …, wherein the one or more first detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during normal operation and wherein the one or more second detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during faulty operation” does not amount to more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “receiving … a set of features corresponding to sensor data recorded at a first time …” as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
The following limitations are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations for performing the respective steps (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414526 A1 (instant application): pgs. 2-3, par. [0042] and [0047]):
wherein a new fault detector is generated based on the identified new fault;
generating the new fault detector comprises:
generating a plurality of synthetic time series data sets based on the set of features,
the reconstructed time series data and the corresponding recorded data;
training the new fault detector on training data, wherein the training data comprises the synthetic time series data sets, the reconstructed time series data and the corresponding recorded data;
wherein the training comprises:
generating features of the training data; identifying one or more clusters of the generated features; and evaluating the new fault detector, wherein the evaluation comprises:
generating one or more synthetic time series evaluation data set based on the synthetic time series data sets, the reconstructed time series data and the corresponding recorded data; and
determining a reconstruction score for the new fault detector.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “saving the new fault detector when a predetermined acceptance criteria is met”.
The limitation of “saving the new fault detector when a predetermined acceptance criteria is met” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “saving the new fault detector when a predetermined acceptance criteria is met” does not amount to more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
The limitation “… occur at a predetermined interval …” merely further details “… the receiving, aggregating and transferring …” of claim 1; and stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 7:
At step 1, the claim recites a combination of concrete devices (i.e. one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, sensors, gateway devices, an application server, a database, one or more mechanical parts of an HVAC system, and a client device), therefore is a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data”.
The limitation of “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment of data to recognize a type of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “identifying … one or more modes of operation … based on the aggregated data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414526 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0074]) are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “one or more processors”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions”; “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “recording, at the one or more environmental sensor devices, sensor data, wherein the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises: a processor unit; a memory unit; a data storage unit; a temperature sensor; a humidity sensor; an occupancy sensor; an equivalent Carbon Dioxide sensor (eCO2); a total volatile organic compound sensor (TVOC); one or more particulate matter sensors; and one or more network modules”; “receiving, at one or more gateway devices, the sensor data recorded by the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “aggregating, at each gateway device, the sensor data received by that gateway device”; “transferring, to an application server, the aggregated data from each of the gateway devices”; “storing, at a database, the aggregated data”; “… one or more mechanical parts of an HVAC system …” and “displaying, on a client device, the one or more mechanical parts and one or more modes of operation associated with each mechanical part”.
The limitations of “one or more processors”; “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions”; “… one or more gateway devices …”; “… an application server …”; “… a database …”; and “… a client device …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… one or more mechanical parts of an HVAC system …” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; and “… the one or more environmental sensor devices comprises: a processor unit; a memory unit; a data storage unit; a temperature sensor; a humidity sensor; an occupancy sensor; an equivalent Carbon Dioxide sensor (eCO2); a total volatile organic compound sensor (TVOC); one or more particulate matter sensors; and one or more network modules” are recited at a high level of generality and represent mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data is used in the abstract mental concept of “identifying”. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “recording … sensor data …”; “receiving … the sensor data recorded by the one or more environmental sensor devices”; “aggregating … the sensor data received by that gateway device”; and “storing … the aggregated data” represents mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “transferring” … the aggregated data from each of the gateway devices” and “displaying … the one or more mechanical parts and one or more modes of operation associated with each mechanical part” represents mere data output. The “transferring” and “displaying” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”; “a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions”; “… one or more gateway devices …”; “… an application server …”; “… a database …”; and “… a client device …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “… one or more mechanical parts of an HVAC system …” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “automatically adding by one or more aggregation nodes one or more environmental sensor devices to a respective aggregation node”; “coordinating among multiple aggregation nodes to distribute responsibility of the one or more environmental sensor devices”; and “… one or more environmental sensor devices …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “recording”; “aggregating”; and “storing”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “receiving” and “transferring” as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “displaying”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “for each of the first detectors and second detectors, reconstruct a set of time series data for a predetermined period of time prior to the first time based on the set of features”; “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”; “determining, based on the comparison, a reconstruction score for each of the first detectors and second detectors”; and “identifying a fault state based the reconstruction scores of one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, wherein, if one or more first detectors have a reconstruction scores below a first predetermined threshold and each of the second detectors have a reconstruction score below a second predetermined threshold, a new fault will be identified”.
The limitations of “for each of the first detectors and second detectors, reconstruct a set of time series data for a predetermined period of time prior to the first time based on the set of features”; “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”; and “determining, based on the comparison, a reconstruction score for each of the first detectors and second detectors” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0414526 A1 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0074]) are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “comparing the reconstructed time series data for each of the first detectors and second detectors with corresponding recorded data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing at least two pieces of information to observe a similarity/dissimilarity (e.g. difference). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying a fault state based the reconstruction scores of one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, wherein, if one or more first detectors have a reconstruction scores below a first predetermined threshold and each of the second detectors have a reconstruction score below a second predetermined threshold, a new fault will be identified”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to recognize a type of data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “receiving, at one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, a set of features corresponding to sensor data recorded at a first time, wherein the one or more first detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during normal operation and wherein the one or more second detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during faulty operation”.
The limitation of “… at one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors, …, wherein the one or more first detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during normal operation and wherein the one or more second detectors are trained on sensor data recorded during faulty operation” is recited at a high level of generality and represents a mere means for data gathering. The use of the “… one or more first detectors and one or more second detectors …” is therefore an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “receiving … a set of features corresponding to sensor data recorded at a first time …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.