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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments, remarks and arguments filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-20, filed on 12/08/2025 are being considered on the merits.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
This action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments submitted on 12/08/2025. In response to the last Office Action:
Claims 1, 11 and 18-20 have been amended.
In light of the amended claim(s) limitations, the rejection of the amended claim(s) under 35 USC § 101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more, previously set forth in the last Office Action mailed on 10/01/2025, has been updated below for refence.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
The examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant's below arguments of the applicant’s remarks regarding amended claims 1, 10 and 18, found on page 8 and filed on 12/08/2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant stated: “Applicant thanks the Examiner for discussing this application in a telephone interview on 24 November 2025 ("the Interview"). In the Interview, the parties discussed the§ 101 rejections and§ 103 rejections. The following were key points of discussion during the Interview:
Applicant and Examiner discussed the§ 101 abstract idea claim(s) rejection. Applicant proposed to amend the independent claims to include only the steps that were indicated in the last office action as not reciting judicial exceptions. The Examiner agreed that such an approach should overcome the§ 101 rejection for claim 1, subject to further consideration.”
Regarding the claim(s) limitations and rejections under 35 USC 101, and in view of the aforementioned “The Interview”, the examiner further confirms that the amended independent claim(s) do not recite an Abstract Idea.
However, and in reference to the “The Interview” conducted on 11/24/2025, the Examiner have stated the following:
“Examiner explained that when limitations of an independent claim(s), for example of the proposed amendments, recite limitations that are considered to disclose insignificant extra-solution activities or well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, then these independent claims will only be examined during the process of examining the dependent claim(s) which dependent from the independent claim(s). In the case of the instant application claim limitations, for example claim 9 recites abstract idea limitations hence the independent claim's limitations will be examined during the process of examining this claim and certainly other dependent claims that dependent from the independent claim(s).”
Consequently, the amended claims filed on 12/08/2025, are now reexamined under 35 USC 101 starting with dependent claims that remain to recite abstract idea and only integrate the examination of associated independent claims as per the claimed limitations of the independent claims.
Please see below the 35 USC 101 claims rejection for further details.
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant's below arguments of the applicant’s remarks, found on pages 11-13, and filed on 12/08/2025, have been fully considered and the following notes are provided in response to Applicant remarks and claim amendments.
Applicant stated: “Page 20 of the Office Action cites FIG. 3D and Para. [0016] of El Kaed as disclosing "wherein a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points" as claimed. However, neither paragraph [0016] nor FIG. 3D describes or illustrates any process or function where "a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points.”
Regarding the applicant’s remarks regarding the aforementioned amended independent claim limitations, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points out that the amended claim limitations are disclosed by the prior arts of reference. In specific, and given the broadest reasonable interpretations, examiner points out that ELKAED discloses in Fig. 3D, Para. [0016]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary data organization constructs within a user interface of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search utilizing time series data.”; and in Fig. 1A, Para. [0028]: “These connected elements may be accessed remotely using existing network infrastructure to allow for efficient Machine to Machine (M2M) and Human to Machine (H2M) communication. During this communication, as the network of connected elements changes over time, an increasing amount of data from these connected elements will be generated and allow for correlations which have not been possible before.”; and in Para. [0030]: “A solution to the data challenge is the use of structured semantic queries that solves two distinct problems. First, is to solve the issue of data heterogeneity delivered from a connected system which contains various data structures. Second is to filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user, cloud platform, or other repository.”; and in Fig. 3D, Para. [0048]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary output from a user interface which may be used to facilitate manual semantic tagging.”
The examiner notes that the reference discloses in in the above cited paragraphs a system that aggregates time series data using several dimensions such as, but not limited to semantic context, static attributes, values, and/or time ranges that filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user which utilizes rendering aspects of a graphical-user interface (GUI) to claimed language of “…, wherein a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points.”
Applicant stated: “Page 21 of the Office Action cites FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0061 ]-[0062] of Cavestro as allegedly disclosing "wherein the partial string comprises an acronym for a full name of the device provided in the semantic description" as claimed. However, the cited portions of Cavestro are silent on "acronym for a full name of the device provided in the semantic description."…, “Cavestro therefore does not disclose "wherein the partial string comprises an acronym for a full name of the device provided in the semantic description."
Regarding the applicant’s remarks regarding the aforementioned amended independent claim limitations, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points out that the amended claim limitations are disclosed by the prior arts of reference. In specific, and given the broadest reasonable interpretations, examiner points out that Cavestro discloses in Fig. 1, Para. [0062]: “The database may be mined with analytical tools which allow retrieval of relevant data (such as tables and free text records, or portions there on by searching the tags 42, 48, 50 (or other form of enrichment) in addition to searching the rest of the database content.”; and in Para. [0066]: “Additionally, each textual entry may be associated with a single record or with a relatively limited number of records, via links. This provides a context for disambiguation.”; and in Para. [0074]: “The designating term may be the field name 47, either as displayed or incorporated into the table metadata as a field description. When field names are codes, abbreviations, and/or are not self-explanatory, the designating term may be the corresponding full term. Human intervention may guide this initialization process, particularly in the case of codes, abbreviations, and fields which are not self-explanatory.”
The examiner notes the reference discloses searching and retrieval from a tag database for relevant data or portions there on to that of a query including a partial string. Further, the examiner asserts that the reference to Cavestro discloses “When field names are codes, abbreviations, and/or are not self-explanatory, the designating term may be the corresponding full term”, which that to the claimed language of “the partial string comprises an acronym.”
See below 35 USC 103 claim rejections for further details.
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 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 5 - Step 1: The aforementioned claims are directed to a process of retrieving data using metadata tags including identifying a digital representation of a device deployed within a space, and tagging a data point associated with the digital representation of the device with a semantic description having a tag schema. Further, the process discloses receiving a query including a partial string referencing the tag schema, then identifying the semantic description from a plurality of semantic descriptions based on the partial string of the query and the tag schema. The, the process describes retrieving one or more tagged data points by querying the data structure using the semantic description, and performing an operation using the one or more tagged data points.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the following limitation: “The method of Claim 1, wherein retrieving the one or more tagged data points, generating the user interface element, and automatically embedding the user interface element are performed automatically in response to identifying the semantic description.” (Emphasis Added)
The recited claim language of – “in response to identifying the semantic description”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of the use of generic computer components. That is, that is other than reciting “building management system”, “processor”, "processing circuit", or "memory", nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, and given some information at hand, a person is mentally capable (or with the aid of pen and paper) of evaluating this information against another set of information for semantic/textual identification of this information, which is a mental process.
Consequently, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and grouping of “Abstract Ideas”. Accordingly, the aforementioned claim(s) recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitation – “wherein retrieving the one or more tagged data points, generating the user interface element, and automatically embedding the user interface element are performed automatically.” The recited claim language of “generating the user interface element, and automatically embedding the user interface …”, is considered a data transmission activity for simply enabling a person to deal with information/data for later use, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recited language of – “automatically embedding the user interface element are performed automatically”, amounts to mere instruction for data manipulation/transmission steps to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, claim 5 is dependent from independent claim 1, and therefore includes all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations - “receiving, by a processing circuit, a query including a partial string referencing a tag schema of a semantic description tagged to a data point associated with a digital representation of a device deployed within a space controlled by a building management system, wherein the partial string comprises an acronym for a full name of the device provided in the semantic description”; and “retrieving, by the processing circuit, one or more tagged data points by querying the data structure using the semantic description.”
The aforementioned claims recite the additional limitations – “receiving, by the processing circuit, a query including a partial string referencing the tag schema”, and “retrieving, …, one or more tagged data points …”, are considered data gathering activity for simply enabling a person to deal with information/data for later use, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, for which an extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the aforementioned claim recites the following – “automatically performing in the building management system an operation using the one or more tagged data points.” At this step, the cited language of: “automatically performing an operation …”, amounts to mere instruction to apply an apply an exception consideration, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic process of transmission of collected and analyzed data, see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Further, the aforementioned claim recites the following – “wherein automatically performing the operation includes: generating, by the processing circuit, a user interface element to display real time trend data associated with the retrieved one or more tagged data points.” The recited claim language of “generating, by the processing circuit, a user interface element to display real time trend data …”, is considered a data transmission activity for simply enabling a person to deal with information/data for later use, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the aforementioned claim recites the following - “automatically embedding, by the processing circuit, the user interface element in a user interface, herein a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points.” The recited claim language of “embedding, by the processing circuit, the user interface element in a user interface”, is again is considered a data transmission activity for simply enabling a person to deal with information/data for later use, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of using a computer to receiving a request, retrieve records and apply an instruction of an insignificant extra solution activity amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-transmission steps (“generating, …, a user interface element to display real time trend data associated with the retrieved one or more tagged data points” and “embedding, …, the user interface element in a user interface”); and data-gathering steps (“retrieving, …, one or more tagged data points …” or “receiving, …, a query …”), are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Additionally, the recited language of the aforementioned amended claims of : “automatically embedding, by the processing circuit, the user interface element in a user interface, wherein the size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points”, discloses an insignificant extra-solution well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry; for example data transmission to a display is dynamically presented based on the information data size. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea as per above details, even when limiting the use of the idea in one particular environment, does not add significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(b).
Thus, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that any combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The claim(s) is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim (13), recites similar limitations to claim 5 and rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding Claim 6 – the aforementioned claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the following limitation: “The method of Claim 1, further comprising automatically formatting, by the processing circuit, at least one of a units or a display scale of the user interface element based on the real time trend data.” (Emphasis Added)
The recited claim language of – “formatting, by the processing circuit, at least one of a units …”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of the use of generic computer components. That is, that is other than reciting “building management system”, “processor”, "processing circuit", or "memory", nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, and given some information at hand, a person is mentally capable (or with the aid of pen and paper) of evaluating this information at hand and generate another form of this information based on some criteria, which is a mental process.
Consequently, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and grouping of “Abstract Ideas”. Accordingly, the aforementioned claim(s) recite abstract ideas.
For Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, the aforementioned claim does not recite any additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, claim 6 is dependent from independent claim 1, and therefore includes all the limitations of independent claim 1. Consequently, the aforementioned Claim 1 examination steps as depicted for Claim 5, shall similarly apply here as well.
Dependent claim (14), recite similar limitations to claim 6 and rejected similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding Claim 9 – the aforementioned claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the following limitation: “wherein automatically performing the operation includes at least one of: (i) determining a fault associated with the space based on the one or more tagged data points.” (Emphasis Added)
The recited claim language of – “determining a fault associated with the space based …”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of the use of generic computer components. That is, that is other than reciting “building management system”, “processor”, "processing circuit", or "memory", nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, and given some information at hand, a person is mentally capable (or with the aid of pen and paper) of evaluating this information at hand against a known set of criteria of fault/error codes to determine an outcome, which is a mental process.
Consequently, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and grouping of “Abstract Ideas”. Accordingly, the aforementioned claim(s) recite abstract ideas.
For Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, the aforementioned claim recites additional limitations however electing at least one limitation is set forth by the claim preamble.
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, claim 9 is dependent from independent claim 1, and therefore includes all the limitations of independent claim 1. Consequently, the aforementioned Claim 1 examination steps as depicted for Claim 5 and/or Claim 6, shall similarly apply here as well.
Dependent claims (17 and 20), recite similar limitations to claim 9 and rejected for the similar reasons as mentioned above.
The aforementioned claims (5-6, 9, 13-14, 17 and 20) are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US-2020/0334253-A1) issued to El Kaed et al. (hereinafter as “EL KAED”), and in view of US Patent Application Publication (US 2008/0027893 A1) issued to Cavestro et al. (hereinafter as “CAVESTRO”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), EL KAED teaches a method of retrieving data using metadata tags (EL KAED Para. [0006]: “Principles of the disclosure contemplate where the structured search query is configured with a particular grammar, or the particular grammar includes query elements that facilitate filtering, aggregation, publish, subscribe, and/or inferential functions”), comprising:
retrieving, by the processing circuit, one or more tagged data points by querying the data structure using the semantic description (EL KAED Para. [0064]: “The provided simple query language greatly facilitates this interaction between the two Engines. This is a differentiating factor from other solutions such as If This Then That (IFTTT). …, a rule may use a location tag as a means to obtain a list of sensors to make comparison of their current values against a threshold specified in a rule. A semantic search engine may do the filtering of all the sensors using the location tag and provides only the relevant ones to the Rules Engine as result. An operational rule may then do the comparison on any results and execute an action, for example, notification, alarm, and/or an actuation, according to the logic specified in the rule.”); and
automatically performing in the building management system an operation using the one or more tagged data points (EL KAED Para. [0064]: “The provided simple query language greatly facilitates this interaction between the two Engines. This is a differentiating factor from other solutions such as If This Then That (IFTTT). As one of many examples, a rule may use a location tag as a means to obtain a list of sensors to make comparison of their current values against a threshold specified in a rule. A semantic search engine may do the filtering of all the sensors using the location tag and provides only the relevant ones to the Rules Engine as result. An operational rule may then do the comparison on any results and execute an action, for example, notification, alarm, and/or an actuation, according to the logic specified in the rule.”),
wherein automatically performing the operation comprises: generating, by the processing circuit, a user interface element to display real time trend data associated with the retrieved one or more tagged data points (EL KAED Para. [0005]: “Methods and systems are provided for searching time series information in a distributed data processing system. A method of processing a semantic search query comprises receiving a structured search query, processing the structured search query to deconstruct into query elements, identifying a set of connected elements based on the query elements, processing a time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements to determine a command data element, …, and providing the queried data set.”; and
Para. [0064]: “The provided simple query language greatly facilitates this interaction between the two Engines. This is a differentiating factor from other solutions such as If This Then That (IFTTT). As one of many examples, a rule may use a location tag as a means to obtain a list of sensors to make comparison of their current values against a threshold specified in a rule. A semantic search engine may do the filtering of all the sensors using the location tag and provides only the relevant ones to the Rules Engine as result. An operational rule may then do the comparison on any results and execute an action, for example, notification, alarm, and/or an actuation, according to the logic specified in the rule.”; and
Fig. 5A, Para. [0067]: “Search Engine to identify which of the connected elements require examination of their respective data structure 530. The data structure for each identified connected element extracted and processed to determine what data structured elements match the query elements of the structured search query and to determine a command data element 540. This command data element is used to determine additional processing required to complete the structured search query.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses providing time series data to that of real time data trends); and
automatically embedding, by the processing circuit, the user interface element in a user interface, wherein a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points (EL KAED Para. [0005]: “…, identifying a set of connected elements based on the query elements, processing a time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements to determine a command data element, utilizing the command data element to process the time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements, annotating the time series data structure of each of the identified set of connected elements to form a queried data set, and providing the queried data set.”; and
Fig. 3D, Para. [0016]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary data organization constructs within a user interface of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search utilizing time series data.”; and
Fig. 1A, Para. [0028]: “These connected elements may be accessed remotely using existing network infrastructure to allow for efficient Machine to Machine (M2M) and Human to Machine (H2M) communication. During this communication, as the network of connected elements changes over time, an increasing amount of data from these connected elements will be generated and allow for correlations which have not been possible before.”; and
Para. [0030]: “A solution to the data challenge is the use of structured semantic queries that solves two distinct problems. First, is to solve the issue of data heterogeneity delivered from a connected system which contains various data structures. Second is to filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user, cloud platform, or other repository.”; and
Fig. 3D, Para. [0048]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary output from a user interface which may be used to facilitate manual semantic tagging.”; and
Fig. 6, Para. [0071]: “Implementations of SENTS 610 queries may rely on domain specific query language and may consider a combination of tags and/or expressions to filter and aggregate time series data using several dimensions such as, but not limited to semantic context, static attributes, values, and/or time ranges.”; and
Para. [0096]: “Various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented in a non-programmed environment (e.g., documents created in HTML, XML or other format that, when viewed in a window of a browser program render aspects of a graphical-user interface (GUI) or perform other functions). Various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented as programmed or non-programmed elements, or any combination thereof.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses in in the above cited paragraphs a system that aggregate time series data using several dimensions such as, but not limited to semantic context, static attributes, values, and/or time ranges that filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user which utilizes rendering aspects of a graphical-user interface (GUI) to claimed language of “embedding, by the processing circuit, the user interface element in a user interface, wherein a size of the user interface element in the user interface is scaled based on a value of the one or more tagged data points.”
However, EL KAED does not explicitly teach receiving, by [the] a processing circuit, a query including a partial string referencing [the] a tag schema of a semantic description tagged to a data point associated with a digital representation of a device deployed within a space controlled by a building management system
But CAVESTRO teaches receiving, by [the] a processing circuit, a query including a partial string referencing [the] a tag schema of a semantic description tagged to a data point associated with a digital representation of a device deployed within a space controlled by a building management system (CAVESTRO Fig. 1, Para. [0061]: “…, the structured portion 20 of the database 14 has also been enriched with information. In particular, referents in the individual cell entries 44, 46 of column fields 18 (and optionally also field names 47, field descriptions, and the like) have been enriched with normalized forms of the business objects to which they refer as XML tags 48, 50.”; and
Fig. 1, Para. [0062]: “The database may be mined with analytical tools which allow retrieval of relevant data (such as tables and free text records, or portions there on by searching the tags 42, 48, 50 (or other form of enrichment) in addition to searching the rest of the database content.”; and
Para. [0066]: “Additionally, each textual entry may be associated with a single record or with a relatively limited number of records, via links. This provides a context for disambiguation.”; and
Para. [0074]: “The designating term may be the field name 47, either as displayed or incorporated into the table metadata as a field description. When field names are codes, abbreviations, and/or are not self-explanatory, the designating term may be the corresponding full term. Human intervention may guide this initialization process, particularly in the case of codes, abbreviations, and fields which are not self-explanatory.”,
the examiner notes the reference discloses searching and retrieval from a tag database for relevant data or portions there on to that of a query including a partial string. Further, the examiner asserts that the reference to CAVESTRO discloses “When field names are codes, abbreviations, and/or are not self-explanatory, the designating term may be the corresponding full term”, which that to the claimed language of “the partial string comprises an acronym”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of EL KAED (disclosing semantic search method for a distributed data system with numerical time series data) to include the teachings of CAVESTRO (disclosing methods for text enrichment and normalization in mining mixed data) and arrive at a method to locate textual information based on query search. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by enabling system users to locate information associated with text data from structured data found in tables of a database, thereby providing system users an effective technique to identify referenced text/entities with their corresponding enriched information for detail business objectives and analytical purposes, as recognized by (CAVESTRO, Abstract, Para. [0006]-[0012]). In addition, the references of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database managing information associated with referenced entities/devices.
Regarding independent claims (10 and 18), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to Claim 1, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches wherein the user interface element is an analytics element (EL KAED Fig. 4A, Para. [0053]: “A semantic rule engine controller 408 may include the following features: (1) utilize operational rules to explicitly express user and/or system requirements and conditions in an unambiguous and contextual manner; (2) utilize the capability of a device (e.g. a gateway) to deploy operational rules either locally and/or remotely; (3) dedicated operational rules execution engine to analyze, create, and/or execute the operational rules; (4) utilize SemanticWeb and Ontology concepts to provide consistent, reusable and shareable views regarding the data; (5) query language which is contextual with a natural language-like grammar; (6) an efficient mechanism to analyze user and/or system queries; (7) develop a solution in a modular way to integrate and extend with new functionality in the future.”).
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches wherein the real time trend data includes at least one of an alarm status or a sensor measurement value (EL KAED Para. [0064]: “A semantic search engine may do the filtering of all the sensors using the location tag and provides only the relevant ones to the Rules Engine as result. An operational rule may then do the comparison on any results and execute an action, for example, notification, alarm, and/or an actuation, according to the logic specified in the rule.”).
Regarding claim (12), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to Claim 3, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches wherein retrieving the one or more tagged data points, generating the user interface element, and automatically embedding the user interface element are performed automatically in response to identifying the semantic description (EL KAED Para. [0005]: “Methods and systems are provided for searching time series information in a distributed data processing system. A method of processing a semantic search query comprises receiving a structured search query, processing the structured search query to deconstruct into query elements, identifying a set of connected elements based on the query elements, processing a time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements to determine a command data element, …, and providing the queried data set.”; and
Fig. 3D, Para. [0016]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary data organization constructs within a user interface of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search utilizing time series data.”).
Regarding claim (13), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to Claim 5, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches automatically formatting, by the processing circuit, at least one of a units or a display scale of the user interface element based on the real time trend data (EL KAED Para. [0005]: “Methods and systems are provided for searching time series information in a distributed data processing system. A method of processing a semantic search query comprises receiving a structured search query, processing the structured search query to deconstruct into query elements, identifying a set of connected elements based on the query elements, processing a time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements to determine a command data element, …, and providing the queried data set.”; and
Fig. 3D, Para. [0016]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary data organization constructs within a user interface of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search utilizing time series data.”; and
Para. [0030]: “A solution to the data challenge is the use of structured semantic queries that solves two distinct problems. First, is to solve the issue of data heterogeneity delivered from a connected system which contains various data structures. Second is to filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user, cloud platform, or other repository.”).
Regarding claim (14), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to Claim 6, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches wherein the data structure includes a digital twin representing at least one of a space, a person, a piece of equipment, or an event (EL KAED Para. [0007]: “Further embodiments contemplate where the defined data source is filtered for a data field associated with one or more connected elements, or wherein the associated filtered data fields selected from a group including device type, class, capability, or communication protocol, or, where the defined data source is aggregated using a mathematical operation.”; and
Fig. 4 B/C, Para [0070: “Sensor data such as wind speed, temperature, door contact closure, etc. are all potential examples of such time series data. Of note is that each event, without regard to what the event is, is associated with or can be associated with a temporal signature.”).
Regarding claim (16), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to Claim 8, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1. Further, EL KAED teaches wherein automatically performing the operation includes at least one of: (i) determining a fault associated with the space based on the one or more tagged data points, (ii) generating a predictive control model for the space based on the one or more tagged data points, (iii) generating a control message to control the device based on the one or more tagged data points, (iv) controlling an energy usage associated with the space based on the one or more tagged data points, (v) training a machine learning model associated with the space using the one or more tagged data points, (vi) updating a model associated with the space based on user feedback corresponding to the one or more tagged data points, or (vii) updating an architectural model for the space based on the one or more tagged data points (EL KAED Fig. 4B/C, Fig. 6, Para. [0070]: “A rules engine 426 may also interact with a semantic engine specific to time series data. In various implementations these may be called a Semantic Engine for Time Series (SENTS) 610 or an Embedded version of embodiments of this engine (ESENTS). Associated with SENTS 610 is one or more repositories of time series data 615. This data may be associated with a wide array of sources and applications. Sensor data such as wind speed, temperature, door contact closure, etc. are all potential examples of such time series data. Of note is that each event, without regard to what the event is, is associated with or can be associated with a temporal signature.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses that the system provides Sensor data such as wind speed, temperature, door contact closure, etc. that is associated with a temporal event to that of determining a fault associated with the space).
Regarding claims (17 and 20), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to Claim 9, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 10.
Further, EL KAED teaches wherein automatically performing the operation includes: generating a user interface element to display real time trend data associated with the retrieved one or more tagged data points, wherein the user interface element is dynamically updated based on real time data change (EL KAED Para. [0005]: “Methods and systems are provided for searching time series information in a distributed data processing system. A method of processing a semantic search query comprises receiving a structured search query, processing the structured search query to deconstruct into query elements, identifying a set of connected elements based on the query elements, processing a time series data structure of the identified set of connected elements to determine a command data element, …, and providing the queried data set.”; and
Fig. 3D, Para. [0016]: “FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary data organization constructs within a user interface of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search utilizing time series data.”; and+ Fig. 3C, Para. [0048]: “FIG. 3C illustrates exemplary data organization constructs of connected elements across a system that facilitates a semantic search. ... These exemplary data organization illustrates examples of ontologies such as protocols or usage as well as ontologies specific to the application such as data center or buildings. FIG. 3D illustrates exemplary output from a user interface which may be used to facilitate manual semantic tagging.”; and
Para. [0030]: “A solution to the data challenge is the use of structured semantic queries that solves two distinct problems. First, is to solve the issue of data heterogeneity delivered from a connected system which contains various data structures. Second is to filter and aggregate this heterogeneous data from the connected elements and provide only required and relevant data to a user, cloud platform, or other repository.”; and
Fig. 6, Para. [0071]: “Implementations of SENTS 610 queries may rely on domain specific query language and may consider a combination of tags and/or expressions to filter and aggregate time series data using several dimensions such as, but not limited to semantic context, static attributes, values, and/or time ranges.”; and
Para. [0096]: “Various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented in a non-programmed environment (e.g., documents created in HTML, XML or other format that, when viewed in a window of a browser program render aspects of a graphical-user interface (GUI) or perform other functions). Various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented as programmed or non-programmed elements, or any combination thereof.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses providing time series data to that of real time data trends).
Regarding claim (19), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to Claim 11, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US-2020/0334253-A1) issued to El Kaed et al. (hereinafter as “EL KAED”), in view of US Patent Application Publication (US 2008/0027893 A1) issued to Cavestro et al. (hereinafter as “CAVESTRO”), and in view of US Patent Application Publication (US- 2019/0266243-A1) issued to Farooq et al. (hereinafter as “FAROOQ”).
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented)), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO do not explicitly teach wherein the data structure includes an electronic medical record (EMR) and wherein the real time trend data includes at least one of a patient health status or a biological measurement associated with a patient.
But FAROOQ teaches wherein the data structure includes an electronic medical record (EMR) and wherein the real time trend data includes at least one of a patient health status or a biological measurement associated with a patient (FAROOQ Fig. 2/Fig. 4, Para. [0031]: “An exemplary electronic medical record (“EMR”) is presented in FIG. 4. Health care providers may employ automated techniques for information storage and retrieval. The use of an EMR to maintain patient information is one such example. As shown in FIG. 4, an exemplary EMR 200 includes information collected over the course of a patient's treatment or use of an institution. The information may be collected using forms, form templates, form sections, or combinations thereof as well as other electronic data collection techniques. The information may include information from multiple sources including specialty purpose diagnostic machines such as computed tomography, X-ray, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance machines. For example, computed tomography (CT) images, X-ray images, laboratory test results, doctor progress notes, details about medical procedures, prescription drug information, radiological reports, other specialist reports, demographic information, family history, patient information, and billing (financial) information as generated by various specialty purpose machines may be stored in an EMR 200. Any of this information may provide for information related to a condition for a patient and stored using a particular semantic system as used by the health care provider.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combinations teachings of EL KAED (disclosing semantic search method for a distributed data system with numerical time series data), and the teachings of CAVESTRO (disclosing methods for text enrichment and normalization in mining mixed data), to include the teachings of FAROOQ (disclosing methods for mapping of patient information in in healthcare systems) and arrive at a method to integrate semantic information from multiple sources into a data model for analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by integrating information data of patients into an analysis model is useful for system users to perform practical data analysis to improve processes and/or systems usage, which is a user’s design choice to integrate such information source in a semantic analytical system. In addition, the references of EL KAED, CAVESTRO and FAROOQ teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of managing operations of a system based on semantically represented devices.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US-2020/0334253-A1) issued to El Kaed et al. (hereinafter as “EL KAED”), in view of US Patent Application Publication (US 2008/0027893 A1) issued to Cavestro et al. (hereinafter as “CAVESTRO”), and in view of US Patent Application Publication (US-2016/0350364-A1) issued to Anicic et al. (hereinafter as “ANICIC”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO teach the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the combination of EL KAED and CAVESTRO do not explicitly teach wherein the data point is stored using a resource description framework (RDF) format.
But ANICIC teaches wherein the data point is stored using a resource description framework (RDF) format (ANICIC Table 1, Para. [0053]: “…, a semantic web representation of the tagged data point is generated. The semantic web representation or RDF representation (resource description framework) of the tag shown above is exemplarily generated using a Notation3 or N3 format:”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of teachings EL KAED (disclosing semantic search method for a distributed data system with numerical time series data) and the teachings of CAVESTRO (disclosing methods for text enrichment and normalization in mining mixed data), to include the teachings of ANICIC (disclosing methods for semantically representing a system of devices) and arrive at a method to semantically identify and tag devices in an environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by enabling a system user to semantically represent a system of devices dedicated to automation purposes by providing a tagging-based data model for representing these devices, thereby establishing a tag-based semantic relation between at least one entity and at least one tag to enable system users for efficiently retrieving related semantic relation of associated devices, as recognized by (ANICIC, Abstract, Para. [0010]-[0018]). In addition, the references of EL KAED, CAVESTRO and ANICIC teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of database managing information associated with referenced entities/devices.
Regarding claim (15), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to Claim 7, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sweeney et al.; (US 20110113386 A1); “Methods for creating and manipulating data structures using an interactive graphical interface, wherein the system enables creating, visualizing and manipulating a data structure using an intuitive and interactive graphical interface.”
Maturana et al.; (US 20150134733 A1); “Methods for a cloud-based solution for monitoring industrial processes and machine operations that occur at an on-premise, particularly where sensor-based data is gathered from various sources.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zuheir A Mheir whose telephone number is (571)272-4151. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Pierre M Vital can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
3/20/2026
/ZUHEIR A MHEIR/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198