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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. Although the same art was used, new sections of the art was cited to account for the amended limitations.
Detailed explanation of why the amended claims is not considered to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is given in the rejection below.
Also, the examiner would like to address the applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of the 09/16/25, which state, “From a simple reading of Paragraphs [0115] and [0119] of Wenzel, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion of the emphasized claim recitations … Although the Office Action did not formally take Official Notice of facts outside of the record, the Applicant does traverse any implicit taking of Official Notice and requires that corroborating prior art be cited in the next office action or this rejection be withdrawn.”
The examiner suspects that the applicant may not fully understand the examiner’s obviousness argument. The examiner will attempt to clarify.
First, it should be noted that the examiner is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
The limitation in question is, “wherein each of the first operation value and the second operation value depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition.”
As the applicant pointed out, Wenzel does not have a single section that explicitly states this claim limitation. However, the examiner’s contention is that the limitation is obvious in view of Wenzel’s total teachings.
Under BRI, the examiner interprets the limitation in question, in plain language, to represent a first variable (i.e. first operation value) that is influenced by amount or quality of deliverables produced and a second variable (i.e. second operation value) that is influenced by emissions emitted. The examiner gave “cost” as one example of operation values. In the rejection below, sections of Wenzel (paragraphs 0046-0047, 0063, and 0091) were given that clearly show how cost is influenced by factors, such as cost per unit of energy (i.e. deliverables produced) and cost of resource usage, such as natural gas use (i.e. emissions emitted).
As such, even though Wenzel does not have a single explicit statement that neatly states the claimed limitations, it discloses various examples and variables that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to represent the claimed limitation. Hence, the limitation is obvious, in view of the extensive teachings of the art. This is especially the case, in view of the applicant’s broad claims. The limitation in question does not define what the operation values are, nor does it define what the deliverables produced are or what the emissions emitted are. This allows for the examiner to take a broad but still reasonable interpretation, such as the one just explained. Official notice was not taken, either explicitly or implicitly. The examiner was making an obviousness argument.
The rejection is maintained.
Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawings filed on 03/07/22 have been accepted.
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, 4, 7, 10, and 12-21 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 amendments to independent claims 1 and 19-20 each disclose two instances of the modifier “and/or.” These modifiers are considered to render the scope of the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will construe the presence of “and/or” as “or”.
All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 19-20; they are also rejected as a result of their dependence.
Claim 21 discloses two instances of the modifier “and/or.” These modifiers are considered to render the scope of the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will construe the presence of “and/or” as “or”.
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, 4, 7, 10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to an analysis apparatus, which is a machine. Independent claim 19 is directed to an analysis method, which is a process. Independent claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture. All other claims depend on independent claims 1, 19, and 20. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
compares the first operation value to the second operation value (This limitation recites an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Comparing two values is a simple operation that can be performed in the human mind. The comparison of two values can also be considered an abstract mathematical concept. For example, comparison can be expressed mathematically, such as a = b, x > y, etc …)
Claims 19-20
comparing the first operation value to the second operation value (This limitation recites an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Comparing two values is a simple operation that can be performed in the human mind. The comparison of two values can also be considered an abstract mathematical concept. For example, comparison can be expressed mathematically, such as a = b, x > y, etc …)
All other claims depend on claims 1, 19, and 20. They also recite their abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Dependent claims 4, 7, 10, and 12-13 explicitly disclose calculating a value, which recite abstract mathematical calculations.
Dependent claims 17-18 recite producing a first model … Producing these models are inherently dependent on abstract mathematical relationships and calculations.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
at least one processor (As seen in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Merely disclosing a processor or using a processor merely serves to implement an abstract idea on a computer.)
analysis target plant; emissions emitted by the analysis target plant (The recitation of target plants and emissions by target plants are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
the at least one processor analyzes operation values including a first operation value when a maintenance process is performed on an analysis target plant and a second operation value when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant, wherein each of the first operation value and the second operation value depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph 0067 of the applicant’s own specifications states, “A program installed on the computer 1200 can cause the computer 1200 to function as an operation associated with a device according to embodiments of the present invention or as one or more ‘unit(s)’ of the device, or to perform the operation or the one or more ‘unit(s)’, and/or can cause the computer 1200 to perform processes according to embodiments of the present invention or steps of the processes.”)
the at least one processor provides information that causes a maintenance process on the analysis target plant to be performed (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Rather than affirmatively and positively reciting the maintenance process that is performed, the limitation merely discloses that the processor “provides information that causes a maintenance process … to be performed.” There is a distinction between data processing (i.e. providing information) that may eventually lead to a real-world structural transformation and the real-world structural transformation itself. Here, the limitation remains in the realm of data processing. Furthermore, claim 1 does not specify what the maintenance process that is performed is. New claim 21 mentions certain actions that would likely be considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application, such as “repairing the device” and “repairing the component of the device,” as they effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). However, claim 21 also discloses actions that are less likely to be considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application, such as “updating software that controls the device” and “updating software that controls the component of the device.” Those actions lie in the realm of data processing and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The examiner suggests positively reciting the specific maintenance actions that would be indicative of a real-world transformation, rather than disclosing computer processing limitations that may or may not lead to a real-world transformation.)
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
Independent claims 19-20 represent variations of independent claim 1 and do not recite any additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Claim 19 discloses an analysis method performed by at least one processor, and as discussed above, a mere disclosure of a processor merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claim 20 discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having a program recorded thereon that causes a computer, when executed by the computer, to execute. This limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
All other claims depend on claims 1, 19, and 20. They also recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application by virtue of their dependence.
The dependent claims further disclose limitations that further use the computer to merely process data, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application because the limitations merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12, 14, and 16-18 disclose computer processing and analysis of data that is performed by a computer. They are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14-15 disclose extraction of data. They are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14 and 16 also disclose generic data storage units, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Storing data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 21 states, “the analysis target plant comprises at least one of a device or a component of the device.” This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).) Dependent claim 21 also states, “the maintenance process is at least one of exchanging the device, exchanging the component of the device, repairing the device, repairing the component of the device, updating software that controls the device, or updating software that controls the component of the device.” This limitation was discussed above, with respect to claim 1. Some of the elements in this list are likely to be considered indicative of integration into a practical application, while others are not. As a whole, since only one element of the list is required, the elements that are not considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application may be selected. It is suggested that only the elements that would likely be considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application be positively and affirmatively recited.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving data, processing data, and outputting a result based on the processed data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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, 4, 7, 10, and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel et al (US 20200096985).
With respect to claim 1, Wenzel et al discloses:
An analysis apparatus (paragraph 0012 states, “the operations include determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis …”) comprising at least one processor (figure 4, reference 406)
the at least one processor analyzes operation values including a first operation value when a maintenance process is performed on an analysis target plant and a second operation value when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; figure 13; Wenzel et al abstract states, “performing a first computation of the objective function under a first scenario where maintenance is performed on the equipment during the period, a result of the first computation indicating a first cost. The operations include performing a second computation under a second scenario in which maintenance is not performed during the period, a result indicating a second cost.”; Paragraph 0012 state, “the operations include determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis … The first computation and the second computation are performed based on the set of operating states to determine operational costs under the first scenario and second scenario …”; see also figure 15, references 1504 and 1506 for first and second scenarios where maintenance is performed and is not performed.),
the at least one processor compares the first operation value to the second operation value (figure 15, reference 1512 shows a comparison of two values)
the at least one processor provides information that causes a maintenance process on the analysis target to be performed (figure 15, references 1514 and 1518 show binary results, where in reference 1518, maintenance is performed, and in reference 1514, maintenance is not performed.)
With respect to claim 1, Wenzel et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the first operation value and the second operation value depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions
With respect to claim 1, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel et al:
wherein each of the first operation value and the second operation value depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition (Wenzel et al teaches a model predictive maintenance (MPM) system 602 to use monitored variables and/or equipment status information to identify a current operating state of connected equipment and to predict when performance degradations and faults will occur (paragraph 0119). Furthermore, Wenzel teaches a wide variety of monitored variables that can indicate the performance of connected equipment (paragraph 0115). In addition, Wenzel’s MPM system 602 estimates an amount of time until each failure is predicted to occur and identifies a financial cost associated with each failure (paragraph 0119). In this context, the examiner broadly construes cost to be one example of a first operation value and a second operation value. In some cases, cost may dictate the performance of maintenance. In other cases, the cost may dictate the non-performance of maintenance. Paragraph 0115 discloses temperatures, which is broadly construed to serve as a “quality” indicator. Paragraph 0115 also discloses flow rates, which is broadly construed to serve as an “emissions” indicator. As such, the claimed limitation is considered obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel. The operation values (i.e. the costs) depend on the variables, which include variables directed to both quality and emissions. Please note that the claims are broad and have not provided any technological context, nor detail, about what constitutes “quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted.”)
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity (paragraphs 0046-0047 states, “One example of an objective function which can be searched by the MPM system for combinations of decision variables is shown in the following equation … where Cop,i- is the cost per unit of energy.” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a first operation value to depend on an amount or quality of deliverables produced.)
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions (Paragraph 0063 states, “Subplants 202-212 consume resources (e.g., water, natural gas, electricity, etc.) from utilities to serve thermal energy loads (e.g., hot water, cold water, heating, cooling, etc.) of a building or campus.” Paragraph 0091 states, “Demand response layer 414 can be configured to optimize resource usage (e.g., electricity use, natural gas us, water use, etc.) and/or the monetary cost of such resource usage …” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a second operation value to depend on emissions emitted by the analysis target plant. Natural gas use, for example, would affect costs, which would affect the operation value.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wenzel et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of incorporating data about various monitored variables, in order to make an informed decision about the economic viability of performing maintenance.
With respect to claims 4, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor calculates the operation value per unit operation time of the analysis target plant (paragraph 0152 states, “The utility rates may define various time periods and a cost per unit of a resource during each time period.”)
With respect to claims 7 and 10, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor calculates a value of the maintenance process (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; figure 9, reference 926 discloses a “maintenance cost calculator” and paragraph 0307 states, “The second scenario can be generated for later comparison against the first scenario to determine if maintenance/replacement of the building equipment should occur at time step k …”), based on a difference between the first operation value and the second operation value, and a fee of the maintenance process (The abstract states, “The operations include initiating an automated action to perform maintenance on the equipment in accordance with decisions defined by the first scenario if the first cost is less than or equal to the second cost.” The term “less than or equal” suggests a difference between the two values, and the term “cost” also broadly suggests a “fee”.)
With respect to claim 12, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein: the at least one processor analyzes operation costs including a first operation cost when a maintenance process is performed on an analysis target plant and a second operation cost when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant, each of the operation costs being a cost to operate the analysis target plant under a designated condition, (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; figure 15, paragraph 0305 states, “a cost of performing maintenance/replacement if maintenance/replacement is performed … If savings due to reduced operational costs is large enough, the savings can offset the cost of performing the maintenance/replacement.”),
the at least one processor calculates a value of the maintenance process, further based on a difference between the first operation cost and the second operation cost (maintenance value calculation unit discussed above)
With respect to claim 13, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor calculates time of the maintenance process that maximizes a value of the maintenance process (paragraph 0120 states, “MPM system 602 can be configured to determine an optimal maintenance strategy for connected equipment 610. In some embodiments, the optimal maintenance strategy is a set of decisions which optimizes the total cost associated with purchasing, maintaining, and operating connected equipment 610 over the duration of an optimization period (e.g., 30 weeks, 52 weeks, 10 years, 30 years, etc.).)
With respect to claim 14, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising a maintenance data storage unit that stores maintenance data indicating a state change in each existing plant when various maintenance processes are performed in a plurality of existing plants (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; Paragraph 0086 states, “Memory 408 (e.g., memory, memory unit, storage device, etc.) can include one or more devices …”; Paragraph 0147 states, “Memory 810 may include one or more devices …”; paragraph 0012 states, “the operations include determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis based on historical operating states.” The disclosure of historical operating states suggests storage of past states. State data is further disclosed throughout the disclosure of Wenzel et al, including in paragraphs 0019, 0055, 0072, 0079, 0104, 0112; paragraph 0063 teaches subplants, which anticipates “plurality of plants.”)
wherein the at least one processor extracts, from the maintenance data storage unit, the maintenance data of at least one of the plurality of existing plants corresponding to the analysis target plant, and analyzes the operation value based on the maintenance data extracted (paragraphs 0146-0147 states, “Processor 808 may be configured to execute computer code or instructions stored in memory 810 or received from other computer readable media … Memory 810 may be communicably connected to processor 808 via processing circuit 806 and may include computer code for executing (e.g., by processor 808) one or more processes described herein.”; analysis of maintenance data discussed above)
With respect to claim 15, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor extracts, based on at least one of a scale of a plant, types of the deliverables, types of the emissions or used device, the at least one of the plurality of existing plants similar to the analysis target plant (Wenzel et al discloses various types of data throughout its disclosure, including the data claimed. See, for example, paragraphs 0072, 0102, 0104, 0112, 0115, 0140, 0148. Paragraph 0148 states, “The equipment performance information can include samples of monitored variables (e.g., measured temperature, measured pressure, measured flow rate, power consumption, etc.), current operating conditions (e.g., heating or cooling load, current operating state, etc.), fault indications, or other types of information that characterize the performance of connected equipment 610.”)
With respect to claim 16, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein: the at least one processor acquires first status information indicating a state of the analysis target plant when the maintenance process is performed and second status information indicating a state of the analysis target plant when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; paragraph 0012 discloses, “In some embodiments, the operations include determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis based on historical operating states. The first computation and the second computation are performed based on the set of operating states to determine operational costs under the first scenario and second scenario …”); and
the analysis apparatus comprises a changing information storage unit that stores changing information indicating a change over time in a state of the analysis target plant (suggested by various types of memory disclosed in paragraphs 0086 and 0147),
the at least one processor analyzes a state over time of the analysis target plant on which the maintenance process is performed, based on the first status information and the changing information, and analyzes the first operation value, based on the state over time (paragraph 0019 states, “the method includes determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis based on historical operating states …”); and
the at least one processor analyzes a state over time of the analysis target plant on which the maintenance process is not performed based on the second status information and the changing information, and analyzes the second operation value based on the state over time (paragraph 0019 states, “the method includes determining a set of operating states for the building equipment over the time period by performing at least one of an optimization or an analysis based on historical operating states …”)
With respect to claim 17, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein: the at least one processor produces a first model for simulating a case where a production is performed with a state of a plurality of devices constituting the analysis target plant being a first state and a second model for simulating a case where a production is performed with a state of the plurality of devices being a second state, wherein the second state is different from the first state (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; abstract states, “A model predictive maintenance system …”; Wenzel et al further describes model generation throughout its disclosure, such as in figures 6 and 8 and paragraphs 0006, 0013-0014, 0020-0021, 0043, 0050, 0072, 0093, and 0113-0120)
the at least one processor compares the first model to the second model and evaluates an influence degree on the operation value from a state of each of the devices (Wenzel et al paragraph 0020 states, “The controller includes one or more processors, according to some embodiments. The controller includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations …”; figure 13; paragraphs 0039 and 0295; the difference in operational costs is construed to anticipate the claimed “influence degree on the operation value.”; see also figure 15)
the at least one processor extracts, from the plurality of devices, a candidate on which a maintenance process is performed, based on the influence degree (paragraph 0298 states, “Operational savings 1310 can be calculated by scenario cost calculator 1204 and/or objective function optimizer 940 and used to determine if/when to perform maintenance/replacement of the building equipment … optimal strategy generator 1206 of maintenance viability calculator 1104 can generate equipment purchase and maintenance recommendations indicating maintenance/replacement should be performed at start time 1306. Alternatively, if operational savings 1310 less than a cost of performing the maintenance/replacement during the payback period, optimal strategy generator 1206 may generate equipment purchase and maintenance recommendations indicating that maintenance/replacement should not be performed at start time 1306.”),
the at least one processor analyzes the first operation value when the maintenance process is performed on the device extracted as the candidate (paragraphs 0298-0299)
With respect to claim 18, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein: the at least one processor produces a first model for simulating a case where a production is performed with a state of a plurality of devices constituting the analysis target plant being a first state and a second model for simulating a case where a production is performed with a state of the plurality of devices being a second state, wherein the second state is different from the first state (see rejection of claim 17 above);
the at least one processor compares the first model to the second model and evaluates an influence degree on the operation cost from a state of each of the devices (see rejection of claim 17 above);
the at least one processor extracts, from the plurality of devices, a candidate on which a maintenance process is performed, based on the influence degree (see rejection of claim 17 above),
the at least one processor analyzes the operation cost when the maintenance process is performed on the device extracted as the candidate (see rejection of claim 17 above).
With respect to claim 19, Wenzel et al discloses:
An analysis method performed by at least one processor, comprising: (see rejection of claim 1 above)
analyzing, using the at least one processor, operation values including a first operation value when a maintenance process is performed on an analysis target plant and a second operation value when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant (see rejection of claim 1 above)
comparing, using the at least one processor, the first operation value to the second operation value (see rejection of claim 1 above)
providing information for determining whether a maintenance process on the analysis target plant should be performed (see rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 19, Wenzel et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the operation values depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions
With respect to claim 19, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel et al:
wherein each of the operation values depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition (Wenzel et al teaches a model predictive maintenance (MPM) system 602 to use monitored variables and/or equipment status information to identify a current operating state of connected equipment and to predict when performance degradations and faults will occur (paragraph 0119). Furthermore, Wenzel teaches a wide variety of monitored variables that can indicate the performance of connected equipment (paragraph 0115). In addition, Wenzel’s MPM system 602 estimates an amount of time until each failure is predicted to occur and identifies a financial cost associated with each failure (paragraph 0119). In this context, the examiner broadly construes cost to be one example of a first operation value and a second operation value. In some cases, cost may dictate the performance of maintenance. In other cases, the cost may dictate the non-performance of maintenance. Paragraph 0115 discloses temperatures, which is broadly construed to serve as a “quality” indicator. Paragraph 0115 also discloses flow rates, which is broadly construed to serve as an “emissions” indicator. As such, the claimed limitation is considered obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel. The operation values (i.e. the costs) depend on the variables, which include variables directed to both quality and emissions. Please note that the claims are broad and have not provided any technological context, nor detail, about what constitutes “quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted.”)
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity (paragraphs 0046-0047 states, “One example of an objective function which can be searched by the MPM system for combinations of decision variables is shown in the following equation … where Cop,i- is the cost per unit of energy.” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a first operation value to depend on an amount or quality of deliverables produced.)
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions (Paragraph 0063 states, “Subplants 202-212 consume resources (e.g., water, natural gas, electricity, etc.) from utilities to serve thermal energy loads (e.g., hot water, cold water, heating, cooling, etc.) of a building or campus.” Paragraph 0091 states, “Demand response layer 414 can be configured to optimize resource usage (e.g., electricity use, natural gas us, water use, etc.) and/or the monetary cost of such resource usage …” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a second operation value to depend on emissions emitted by the analysis target plant. Natural gas use, for example, would affect costs, which would affect the operation value.)
With respect to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wenzel et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of incorporating data about various monitored variables, in order to make an informed decision about the economic viability of performing maintenance.
With respect to claim 20, Wenzel et al discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having a program recorded thereon that causes a computer, when executed by the computer, to execute: (see rejection of claim 1 above)
analyzing, using the computer, operation values including a first operation value when a maintenance process is performed on an analysis target plant and a second operation value when the maintenance process is not performed on the analysis target plant (see rejection of claim 1 above);
comparing, using the computer, the first operation value to the second operation value (see rejection of claim 1 above)
providing information for determining whether a maintenance process on the analysis target plant should be performed (see rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 20, Wenzel et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the operation values depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions
With respect to claim 20, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel et al:
wherein each of the operation values depends on an amount or quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted by the analysis target plant under a designated condition (Wenzel et al teaches a model predictive maintenance (MPM) system 602 to use monitored variables and/or equipment status information to identify a current operating state of connected equipment and to predict when performance degradations and faults will occur (paragraph 0119). Furthermore, Wenzel teaches a wide variety of monitored variables that can indicate the performance of connected equipment (paragraph 0115). In addition, Wenzel’s MPM system 602 estimates an amount of time until each failure is predicted to occur and identifies a financial cost associated with each failure (paragraph 0119). In this context, the examiner broadly construes cost to be one example of a first operation value and a second operation value. In some cases, cost may dictate the performance of maintenance. In other cases, the cost may dictate the non-performance of maintenance. Paragraph 0115 discloses temperatures, which is broadly construed to serve as a “quality” indicator. Paragraph 0115 also discloses flow rates, which is broadly construed to serve as an “emissions” indicator. As such, the claimed limitation is considered obvious in view of the total teachings of Wenzel. The operation values (i.e. the costs) depend on the variables, which include variables directed to both quality and emissions. Please note that the claims are broad and have not provided any technological context, nor detail, about what constitutes “quality of deliverables produced and emissions emitted.”)
wherein the deliverables produced are at least one of energy, electric power, heat, water, gases, chemicals obtained through chemical reactions, or electricity (paragraphs 0046-0047 states, “One example of an objective function which can be searched by the MPM system for combinations of decision variables is shown in the following equation … where Cop,i- is the cost per unit of energy.” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a first operation value to depend on an amount or quality of deliverables produced.)
wherein the emissions emitted are at least one of substances, wastewater, gases, carbon dioxide, or byproducts of chemical reactions (Paragraph 0063 states, “Subplants 202-212 consume resources (e.g., water, natural gas, electricity, etc.) from utilities to serve thermal energy loads (e.g., hot water, cold water, heating, cooling, etc.) of a building or campus.” Paragraph 0091 states, “Demand response layer 414 can be configured to optimize resource usage (e.g., electricity use, natural gas us, water use, etc.) and/or the monetary cost of such resource usage …” This is an example of how it would be obvious for a second operation value to depend on emissions emitted by the analysis target plant. Natural gas use, for example, would affect costs, which would affect the operation value.)
With respect to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wenzel et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of incorporating data about various monitored variables, in order to make an informed decision about the economic viability of performing maintenance.
With respect to claim 21, Wenzel et al, as modified, discloses:
the analysis target plant comprises at least one of a device or a component of the device (Figure 4, reference 448 discloses “Client Devices.”; Figure 5 discloses many components, such as thermostats, rooftop units, dampers, etc … that could be broadly construed as devices or components of devices. Figure 6 shows connected equipment, such as chillers, boilers, and batteries that could be broadly construed as devices or components of devices.)
the maintenance process is at least one of exchanging the device, exchanging the component of the device, repairing the device, repairing the component of the device, updating software that controls the device, or updating software that controls the component of the device (paragraph 0099 states, “The responses to detected or diagnosed faults can include providing an alert message to a user, a maintenance scheduling system, or a control algorithm configured to attempt to repair the fault …”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dalal (US PgPub 20130145219) discloses program flow control monitoring routines, related methods and systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 01/08/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857