DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 June 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, Pages 5 et seq., filed 25 June 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of Claims 1-20 over Michaels et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0235455 (claim 1 representative) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Regarding the claim construction of the words “tag” and “dictionary”, Attorney’s Arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 2145), Attorney’s Arguments appear to be articulating an argument in favor of treating “tag dictionary” as a term of art and not as words having their ordinary and independent meanings. Examiner does not find sufficient evidence in the record to treat the phrase at issue as a term of art with other than the plain meanings of the words. (see MPEP 2111.01.V) It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim (2111.01.II). Applicant is free to disavow claim scope or to amend the claim to include limitations which narrow the scope of the claim to match the preferred embodiment. (MPEP 2111.01.IV). Examiner notes that applicant’s own specification indicates that a ‘tag’ ‘dictionary’ may be provided on a station ([0198]). Further Claim 7 recites that tags may comprise a “label-value” pair, which is the same interpretation given to “tag” by the Examiner under plain meaning interpretation. Further, it is not clear how auto-tagging can be applied to a tag dictionary (as required by Claim 20) if the interpretation is limited in the way argued by Applicant’s Representative. Further, In order to anticipate, the elements of a prior art reference do not need to be identical in terminology (MPEP 2131 “this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required.”). The words at issue have therefore been interpreted as having their plain meaning. However, as mentioned in the Advisory action mailed 04 June 2025, Examiner agrees with the arguments advanced on page 8 of the remarks that neither Michaels, nor any other prior art references of record, appears to teach or fairly suggest, at least, comparing the user defined tags to a legacy tag dictionary to identify new tags of the user defined tags, nor automatically adding said new tags to the legacy tag dictionary. Accordingly, The 35 USC 102 rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Ramamurti et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0133978, see below for detailed rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “legacy” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “legacy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner notes that Claim 2 sets forth the limitation “wherein the processing circuit is enabled to select a pre-defined default tag dictionary associated with a station as the legacy tag dictionary” and Claim 3 sets forth the limitation “wherein the processing circuit is enabled to receive the legacy tag dictionary from a user interface when a station is not associated with a pre-defined default tag dictionary” each of which resolves the indefiniteness issue; a “legacy” tag dictionary is therefore a “pre-defined default” (e.g. pre-existing) tag dictionary and equivalents. Claims 2 and 3 are therefore not rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding Claims 8 and 13, These claims recite the same indefinite term as Claim 1 and are likewise indefinite for the same reason(s) set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 4-7, 9-12, and 14-20, these claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea (“mental process”) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “comparing the user defined tags to a legacy tag dictionary to identify new tags of the user defined tags”. which is a mental process that may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Notwithstanding the apparent implementation of the mental process by a computer; as the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could have been performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335; USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Circ. 2015).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because While the claim recites the additional limitations of “a processing circuit”, “providing… a system library file in an editable spreadsheet format”; “importing… a controller application file into the system library file”, “editing the system library file to include user defined tags”; and “automatically adding the new tags of the user defined tags to the legacy tag dictionary”; appear to be no more than using a general purpose computer to store and load data, and fail to recite sufficient details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and mere extra-solution activity amounting to necessary data gathering in order to carry out the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitation “a building automation system (BAS)” appears to be no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When viewed as a whole the claim appears to recite no more than automating a manual process of comparing changes in a first file to changes in a second file in order to replicate those changes, which could in principle be performed by a person mentally with aid of pen and paper, but for the implementation on a computer system.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to the lack of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to perform necessary data gathering and apply the exception using generic computer components and recite activity that has been generally recognized by the courts to be insignificant well-understood, routine and conventional functions of general purpose computers; (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), no more than generally linked to a particular technological field.
Considered as a whole, the claim recites a mental process practically accomplished in the human mind, but for reciting necessary data gathering, and performing the process using generic computer components, loosely linked to a technological field; and fails to recite any limitations which are significantly more than a mere instruction to apply the exception by use of a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible.
Independent Claims 8 and 13 recite substantively the same abstract idea and additional limitations as identified with respect to claim 1 above; except embodied as a method for a building management system and a building management system; These claims are likewise ineligible for the reason(s) set forth above.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-5, 9-11, 15-18 and 20, these claims appear to recite additional limitations that are no more than using a general purpose computer to receive input, send output, perform repetitive calculations, and display data, to carry out necessary data gathering to practice the abstract idea; and recite activity that has been generally recognized by the courts to be insignificant, well-understood, routine and conventional functions of general purpose computers; (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly these additional limitations fail to evidence integration into a practical application or rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 6-7, 12, 14, and 19, these claims appear to recite additional detail regarding the kind of information to be generated by the user as part of the mental process involving observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion; which are also part of the abstract idea accomplishable in the human mind; and accordingly these limitations are also part of the mental process which may be performed in the human mind, possibly with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels et al., US Pg-pub 2019/0235455 in view of Ramamurti et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0133978
Regarding Claim 1, Michaels teaches:
A method for a building automation system (BAS), (see e.g. [0028] “a computing system for automatically tagging entities in a building automation system (BMS) is shown and described.”) the method comprising: providing, by a processing circuit, (see fig. 4, Processor 406) a system library file in an editable spreadsheet format; ([0095] “the construction of the system library 624 can be enhanced for system library files to explicitly list the appropriate tags for the device and the points. For example, a “System Library Editor” and an existing spreadsheet that creates System Libraries can be enhanced to support the addition/modification/deletion of tagging data.”)
importing, by the processing circuit, a controller application file into the system library file; ([0095] “system library files can include PCT files (e.g., files corresponding to a programmable controller tool such as FX-PCT and FC-PCT) and/or WT4000 files (e.g., files corresponding to a BACnet device).”)
editing the system library file to include user defined tags; ([0126] “a user interface 1300 of the system library shows adding a tags column to the points table and, when a point is selected for editing, a tags edit box may allow the user to associate tags with the point. These updates may apply to editing existing system libraries as well as creating a system library from a caf or a csv file. The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”)
Michaels differs from the claimed invention in that:
Michaels does not appear to clearly articulate: comparing the user defined tags to a legacy tag dictionary to identify new tags of the user defined tags;
Nor automatically adding the new tags of the user defined tags to the legacy tag dictionary.
However, Ramamurti teaches a building management system (see e.g. [0003] “In a building management system, a building and equipment of the building can be represented as text strings, strings of characters representing the building, points, and equipment.”) which receives user-defined tags (see e.g. [0129] “new tags received from the user”) and compares them ([0125] “the mapping system 300 can determine whether a new tag associate with new a character and/or new character grouping is included in the naming convention received in the step 606 and add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”) to a legacy dictionary ([0125] “Furthermore, if the dictionary already exists, the mapping system 300 can determine whether any new character or character groupings are mapped to existing tags of the dictionary.”) in order to determine which new tags to add to the dictionary ([0125] “add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”)
Ramamurti and Michaels are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and the claimed invention and other references of Building Management and Building Automation systems and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each uses Project Haystack schemas for building namespaces of meta data tags to annotate building automation system stations and points; each takes input from users in order to update said tags.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Michaels to include reviewing user-defined tags for addition to an already existing tag dictionary, as suggested by Ramamurti.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate future labeling and tag prediction, as suggested by Ramamurti ([0129] “Once the expert is done labeling, the new tags received from the user or existing tags are assigned to the right substrings and added to the dictionary 330. These new tags can be used by the mapping system 300 for future labeling and/or tag prediction.”)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is enabled to select a pre-defined default tag dictionary associated with a station as the legacy tag dictionary. ([0096] “tags can be of the form “namespace:tag” where the namespace is the nickname used within Niagara to identify the tag dictionary. … For example, “hs:stage=2” refers to the stage value tag in a Haystack tag dictionary” Stations are associated with tag dictionary services, see [0111] “Before any parsing of the file takes place, the station may be checked by the tag dictionary service”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is enabled to receive the legacy tag dictionary from a user interface when a station is not associated with a pre-defined default tag dictionary. (see fig. 10, especially 1010; and fig. 11, 1104, depicting a user interface for providing a tag library to associate with a given station device)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
copying the system library file from a text file format into the editable spreadsheet format. ([0095] “the construction of the system library 624 can be enhanced for system library files to explicitly list the appropriate tags for the device and the points. For example, a “System Library Editor” and an existing spreadsheet that creates System Libraries can be enhanced to support the addition/modification/deletion of tagging data.”)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein a user interface produces an indication to manage de- linking of one or more tags of tagged entities in the building automation system (BAS). ([0124] “the Remove Tags button may remove the tags. In some embodiments, the Remove Tags button may not remove the implied tags that a software package (e.g., Niagara) automatically associates with various entities.”)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the user defined tags comprises a marker, a label-value pair or a collection of information. (see [0118] “If the tag type is a value tag (i.e., the result of step 920 is “yes”), the tag may be added to the point or device and a specific value may be associated with the tag (step 924).”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the user defined tags are associated with a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. ([0008] “In some embodiments the first entity includes one of a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. In some embodiments the tag type is a value tag, wherein a value tag further includes a numeric value associated with the first entity.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Michaels teaches:
A method of managing tagging of entities in a building management system (BMS), (see e.g. [0028] “a computing system for automatically tagging entities in a building automation system (BMS) is shown and described.”) comprises: receiving, by a processing circuit, (see fig. 4, Processor 406) a system library file in a text file format; (see e.g. fig. 12, file name: libraries are .xml files; see also [0098] “an application supported by a PCT system library. In this example, all of the fields are xml attributes.”)
copy the system library file to an editable spreadsheet format; ([0095] “the construction of the system library 624 can be enhanced for system library files to explicitly list the appropriate tags for the device and the points. For example, a “System Library Editor” and an existing spreadsheet that creates System Libraries can be enhanced to support the addition/modification/deletion of tagging data.”)
editing the system library file in the editable spreadsheet format to include user defined tags; ([0126] “The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”)
Michaels differs from the claimed invention in that:
Michaels does not appear to clearly articulate: comparing the user defined tags to a legacy tag dictionary to identify new tags of the user defined tags;
Nor adding the new tags of the user defined tags to the legacy tag dictionary.
However, Ramamurti teaches a building management system (see e.g. [0003] “In a building management system, a building and equipment of the building can be represented as text strings, strings of characters representing the building, points, and equipment.”) which receives user-defined tags (see e.g. [0129] “new tags received from the user”) and compares them ([0125] “the mapping system 300 can determine whether a new tag associate with new a character and/or new character grouping is included in the naming convention received in the step 606 and add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”) to a legacy dictionary ([0125] “Furthermore, if the dictionary already exists, the mapping system 300 can determine whether any new character or character groupings are mapped to existing tags of the dictionary.”) in order to determine which new tags to add to the dictionary ([0125] “add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”)
Ramamurti and Michaels are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and the claimed invention and other references of Building Management and Building Automation systems and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each uses Project Haystack schemas for building namespaces of meta data tags to annotate building automation system stations and points; each takes input from users in order to update said tags.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Michaels to include reviewing user-defined tags for addition to an already existing tag dictionary, as suggested by Ramamurti.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate future labeling and tag prediction, as suggested by Ramamurti ([0129] “Once the expert is done labeling, the new tags received from the user or existing tags are assigned to the right substrings and added to the dictionary 330. These new tags can be used by the mapping system 300 for future labeling and/or tag prediction.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the text file format is an XML format. (see e.g. fig. 12, file name: libraries are .xml files; see also [0098] “an application supported by a PCT system library. In this example, all of the fields are xml attributes.”)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the system library file in the editable spreadsheet format comprises a template worksheet for a type of library. ([0126] “The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”; i.e. named ranges and macros comprising a template.)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the type of library is determined by header information in the system library file in the text file format. (see [0097] Table 1 and [0099] Table 3; System Library headers determine whether the type of library is a PCT system library or a WT4000 system library, e.g.)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the user defined tags are associated with an entity comprising one of a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. ([0008] “In some embodiments the first entity includes one of a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. In some embodiments the tag type is a value tag, wherein a value tag further includes a numeric value associated with the first entity.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Michaels teaches:
A building management system (BMS) (see e.g. [0028] “a computing system for automatically tagging entities in a building automation system (BMS) is shown and described.”) , comprising: a system library comprising a plurality of relationships between a plurality of tags and a plurality of entities; ([0011] “[0011] Another implementation of the present disclosure is a building automation system (BAS) including a system library including a number of relationships between a number of tags and a number of entities.”)
and a computing system in communication with the system library, (see fig. 6; [0095] “computing system 600 includes a system library 624 containing data as described herein, which can be run by software code regardless of whether the automatic tagging is done on import or thereafter.”)
wherein the computing system is configured to provide data from a system library file in a text format to a system library file in a spreadsheet format, ([0095] con’t … “the construction of the system library 624 can be enhanced for system library files to explicitly list the appropriate tags for the device and the points. For example, a “System Library Editor” and an existing spreadsheet that creates System Libraries can be enhanced to support the addition/modification/deletion of tagging data.”)
edit the system library file in the spreadsheet format to include user defined tags, ([0126] “The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”)
Michaels differs from the claimed invention in that:
Michaels does not appear to clearly articulate: compar[ing] the user defined tags to a legacy tag dictionary to identify new tags of the user defined tags;
Nor add[ing] the new tags of the user defined tags to the legacy tag dictionary.
However, Ramamurti teaches a building management system (see e.g. [0003] “In a building management system, a building and equipment of the building can be represented as text strings, strings of characters representing the building, points, and equipment.”) which receives user-defined tags (see e.g. [0129] “new tags received from the user”) and compares them ([0125] “the mapping system 300 can determine whether a new tag associate with new a character and/or new character grouping is included in the naming convention received in the step 606 and add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”) to a legacy dictionary ([0125] “Furthermore, if the dictionary already exists, the mapping system 300 can determine whether any new character or character groupings are mapped to existing tags of the dictionary.”) in order to determine which new tags to add to the dictionary ([0125] “add the new tag and the new characters and/or new character groupings to the dictionary.”)
Ramamurti and Michaels are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and the claimed invention and other references of Building Management and Building Automation systems and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities; each uses Project Haystack schemas for building namespaces of meta data tags to annotate building automation system stations and points; each takes input from users in order to update said tags.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Michaels to include reviewing user-defined tags for addition to an already existing tag dictionary, as suggested by Ramamurti.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate future labeling and tag prediction, as suggested by Ramamurti ([0129] “Once the expert is done labeling, the new tags received from the user or existing tags are assigned to the right substrings and added to the dictionary 330. These new tags can be used by the mapping system 300 for future labeling and/or tag prediction.”)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the user defined tags comprise point names. (tags may include markers, i.e., names, for example: “CO2” “sensor”, see fig. 13 column “tags” and [0106] “If, for example, the tag is a marker or tag group, then tag addition module 622 may simply add the tag to the device or point.”)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the system library file in editable spreadsheet format comprises a template worksheet for a type of library. ([0126] “The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”; i.e. named ranges and macros comprising a template.)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 14,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the computing system is configured to import ([0102] “computing system 600 is shown to include an import module 612. Import module 612 may be used to automatically tag devices and/or points upon file import.”) a controller application file ([0110] “the method of automatically tagging upon import may be done either when the points are added to a device on import of CAF files (e.g., either BACnet or N2) and CSV files for BACnet WT 4000”) to the system library file in the spreadsheet format. ([0095] “In some situations, system library files can include PCT files (e.g., files corresponding to a programmable controller tool such as FX-PCT and FC-PCT) and/or WT4000 files (e.g., files corresponding to a BACnet device).”)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 14,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the computing system is configured to import a WT400 file to the system library file in the spreadsheet format. ([0110] In some embodiments, the method of automatically tagging upon import may be done either when the points are added to a device on import of CAF files (e.g., either BACnet or N2) and CSV files for BACnet WT 4000).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 17,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the tag dictionary comprises a template worksheet with named ranges for the user defined tags. ([0126] “The associated spreadsheet may be enhanced to support adding tags at both the application and the point level, for example by adding the appropriate named ranges to the spreadsheets and enhancing the macros to write the tags to the generated system library file.”; i.e. named ranges and macros comprising a template.)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 17,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein the user defined tags are associated with an entity comprising one of a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. ([0008] “In some embodiments the first entity includes one of a space, a piece of equipment, a sensor, a device, or a point. In some embodiments the tag type is a value tag, wherein a value tag further includes a numeric value associated with the first entity.”)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Michaels and Ramamurti teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 17,
Michaels further teaches:
wherein auto tagging is applied to the tag dictionary. ([0090] “The automatic tagging of the present disclosure may include adding appropriate direct tags/tag groups as defined in a system library to a device, as well as adding appropriate direct tags/tag groups as defined in the system library to points. The automatic tagging may further provide that when devices are added via a palette (see, e.g., a Johnson Controls TEC3000, electric meters) then tags can be added to the devices and points also utilizing the system library.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riggs et al., WIPO publication WO 2014-145884 - automatically tagging devices in legacy applications based on contextual identifiers of syntactic rules from a domain-specific dictionary of said rules;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119