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
The amendment filed November 3, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 and 13 were amended. No claim was canceled, and no claim was newly added. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-13 under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 have been considered but are found unpersuasive. A new ground of rejections is presented below due to the amendments to further clarify the claimed language. The additional claim language of wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed by a controller does not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections as it only describes the application information content. Further, the processing by a controller is not positively recited in the claims. Even if it was positively recited, the controller will only be considered as a generic computer component. The rejections are modified in view of the amendments as shown below.
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 thereof, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claim 13 is directed to a device and falls within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The limitations of claim 1 of "generating a semantic model of the building automation system, including automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment; extending the semantic model of the building automation system by providing application information wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed; and generating, based on the equipment information and application information of the extended semantic model, a building automation project adapted for loading on a building automation device", as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or with the use of pen and paper generate a semantic model with extracted equipment information of the building automation system and extend the semantic model with application information. A person can also mentally or with the use of pen and paper generate a building automation project based on the equipment and application information of the extended semantic model that is adapted to load on a building automation device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A.
The limitations of claim 13 of "to generate a semantic model of the building automation system, including automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment; to extend the semantic model of the building automation system by providing application information wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed; and to generate, based on the equipment information and application information of the extended semantic model of the building automation system, a building automation project", as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or with the use of pen and paper generate a semantic model with extracted equipment information of the building automation system and extend the semantic model by with application information. A person can also mentally or with the use of pen and paper generate a building automation project based on the equipment and application information of the extended semantic model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed by a controller” and claim 13 recites additional elements of "A device for generating a building automation project of a building automation system, the device comprising: a computing unit programmed:" and "wherein the computing unit is further programmed to provide the generated building automation project to a building automation device via the interface" which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, claims 1 and 13 respectively recite additional elements such as "receiving via an interface structural information regarding building equipment" and "an interface adapted to receive structural information regarding building equipment" which are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea under Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and mere instructions to apply which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network").
Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein the structural information regarding building equipment comprises at least one item selected from the group consisting of: an architectural drawing, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) schema, an electrical schema, technical drawings, and a functional specification" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements
and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 3, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein the equipment information of the semantic model of the building automation system comprises at least one model selected from the group consisting of: an architecture semantic model generated based on the architectural drawing, an HVAC semantic model generated based on the HVAC schema, and an electrical semantic model generated based on the electrical schema" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 4, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment comprises at least one process selected from the group consisting of: applying computer vision methods to the structural information regarding the building equipment and applying data fusion methods to the structural information regarding the building equipment", which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment comprises specifying a type of building equipment and/or relations of the building equipment" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein providing application information comprises specifying a type of applications corresponding to the building equipment and/or relations of the building equipment" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes selecting building equipment and/or controller from a database" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional limitations of "wherein: extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes counting data points based on an HVAC semantic model generated based on an HVAC schema; and the building equipment and/or controller are selected based on the counted data points", as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally count data points based on a HVAC semantic model and select the building equipment and/or controller bad on the counted data points. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional limitations of "wherein: extending the semantic model of the building automation system further includes providing protocol type information; and selecting building equipment and/or controller is based on the provided protocol type information", as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or with the use of pen and paper provide protocol type information and select the building equipment and/or controller based on the protocol information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the use of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 step 2A. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into a practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 10, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes providing a design network topology based on information stored in a database" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding claim 11, it recites additional element recitations of "wherein generating the building automation project comprises providing at least one information selected from the group consisting of: building structure information, network information, controller information, input/output module information, management station information, field device information, and application information" which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. $101.
Regarding claim 12, it recites additional limitations of "further comprising: loading the generated building automation project on the building automation device; and adjusting building equipment and/or a controller by the building automation device using the generated building automation project", which are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Accordingly, claims 1-13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougier (US Pat 10,049,088) (hereinafter "Rougier"), in view of Malakuti, US PGPUB US-20190280889-A1 (herein after “Malakuti”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rougier teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a building automation project of a building automation system, BAS, the method comprising: receiving via an interface structural information regarding building equipment (Col 3 lines 11-18, "Embodiments of a system and process are disclosed by which a home builder or architect describes a house or building projects using a novel nomenclature inside a web-based application form. This information is then paired from a database of systems which may be automated. This database has a generic description of automation capabilities for families of devices irrespective of manufacturer or protocols");
generating a semantic model of the building automation system, including automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment (Col. 4 lines 31-40, "The system provides an interface for the input of semantic information to describe a building project's topology. The user may input known building information, for example, information on the construction, location, dimensions, airflow, window square footage, room orientation, building standard (for example, if the building is a "green" building), or other known information about the building. The system may then group rooms as nodes and edges, to give the system context as to the proximity and relation of rooms to one another, these nodes may be further grouped into units" where (Col. 4 lines 56-58) the system context further includes settings of the kitchen lights and the oven for example);
extending the semantic model of the building automation system by providing application information (Col 4. Lines 41-54, "units may have unit areas within them, an example of a unit area may be a kitchen This may include information about the heating, cooling and ventilation requirements of such spaces like kitchen as specified by the locale building codes. Additionally, this would allow the system to associate that room as a kitchen and apply kitchen-specific algorithms to it");
and generating, based on the equipment information and application information of the extended semantic model, a building automation project adapted for loading on a building automation device (Col. 5 lines 18-22, "When the installation and pre-configuration is complete, the system may then connect with the controller, and configure the controller with the settings specified in the pre-configuration, downloading the appropriate drivers and software and other configurations"; (Col. 3 lines 11-22) Based on the building project and devices "the system is able to generate all user interface elements, testing, control algorithms, installation details (wiring, scheduling...) with no human interaction" thus generating a building automation project).
Rougier does not explicitly teach but Malakuti teaches wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed by a controller in a semantic model ([0034] This creates, in the end, a running building automation system as well as—optionally—a configuration for an automation network hub or controller, which is able to achieve a building automation system using multiple technologies/protocols, such as KNX, BACnet, ZigBee, LONworks by translating between the actual devices, e.g. sensors, actuators, and control devices, wherein it based on a semantic based model e.g. according standard VDI 3813, comprising an automatic configuration generation for specific technologies/protocols from a function-based device specification through the following multiple transformation steps. [Abstract] A computer-implemented method for semantic-based planning, engineering, and commissioning a project in a building or home automation system, using multiple technologies/protocols of devices including sensors, actuators and control devices, the method being based on a semantic based model having an automatic configuration generation for specific technologies/protocols from a function-based device specification, the method including the following multiple transformation steps: calculating/creating a configuration for a specific protocol/technology using a mapping complex or structure of rules or processing instructions that takes into account the semantic based model, technology models, heuristics, and/or technology constraints of the devices; generating an internal model of the building automation system with communication objects as an output of the automatic created configuration calculation; transforming the internal model, depending on a targeted technology/protocol, in order to create either application programming interface (API) calls or a format for a mandatory tool, and downloading the created configuration into the building automation devices).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rougier and Malakuti since both are directed to semantic model generation and Malakuti’s controller processing application information would improve system efficiency of the modified Rougier’s system.
Regarding Claim 2, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the structural information regarding building equipment comprises at least one item selected from the group consisting of: an architectural drawing, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) schema (Col. 3 lines 62-67 and Col. 4 lines 1-3, "The user may manually map commands to an automation, or in some instances, this may already be configured. For example, an HVAC system may have a "bypass" automation, so the user would be able to select which command within the device's protocol to associate with that automation, or, a device may only be able to turn off and on, so it may contain an on-off automation, which may be mapped to the device's associated protocol as a "1" for on, and a "0" for off"), an electrical schema, technical drawings, and a functional specification.
Regarding Claim 3, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 2, wherein the equipment information of the semantic model of the building automation system comprises at least one model selected from the group consisting of: an architecture semantic model generated based on the architectural drawing, an HVAC semantic model generated based on the HVAC schema (Col. 4 lines 59- 67 and Col. 5 lines 1-10, "If the house is wired for an environmental controller this information may be added to the semantic information For example, the user may select an HVAC system, and then specify the type, make, model, the device scope (security, etc), orientation and installation location of the device Using the information supplied by the user and the control objective, the system generates instructions for wiring and actual installation of a controller based on the selected devices and their locations, orientations and mode of connection (wired, wifi, etc.)"), and an electrical semantic model generated based on the electrical schema.
Regarding Claim 5, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment comprises specifying a type of building equipment (Col. 3 lines 44-54, "A building project may be described with the system, and the user may specify the project topology and select the devices to perform a given set of functions and associate those devices with different areas within the project. Devices may be templatized and available in a database, so that the user may select from available devices, or the user may select a generic device template and add a new device to the database. The device templates may begin as a model for a generic device of a given type and then the user may add features and functions (automations) to the device to customize the template to mirror the real world device") and/or relations of the building equipment.
Regarding Claim 6, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 5, wherein providing application information comprises specifying a type of applications corresponding to the building equipment (Col. 4 lines 48-54, "However, the system allows for tagging any room unit following formalized aliases like "kitchen" which would give the system context to apply known attributes to rooms that correspond to kitchens. This may include information about the heating, cooling and ventilation requirements of such spaces like kitchen as specified by the locale building codes") and/or relations of the building equipment.
Regarding Claim 7, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes selecting building equipment and/or controller from a database (Col. 4 lines 59-67, Additional semantic information includes selecting a HVAC system type, make, model, and device scope, where (Col. 3 lines 47-50) the devices are located in a database).
Regarding Claim 8, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 7, wherein: extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes counting data points based on an HVAC semantic model generated based on an HVAC schema (Col. 5 lines 1-2, "The system may also check the maximum number of supported devices for each connection type");
and the building equipment and/or controller are selected based on the counted data points (Col. 5 lines 2-6, The system "will generate an alert that another controller should be added to the building if that number exceeds the maximum number allowable, this may be determined by limitations of the hardware, ports or protocols").
Regarding Claim 9, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein: extending the semantic model of the building automation system further includes providing protocol type information (Col. 4 lines 62-65, "During the configuration process, the user may select the types of devices which will be in each room and may further specify the specific a specific brand, manufacturer or protocol");
and selecting building equipment and/or controller is based on the provided protocol type information (Col. $ lines 13-18, "If the distance between the controller and a wired device is too great for a given protocol, the system may generate an alert that the device needs to be moved closer to the controller, another controller needs to be used, or another means of connection should be employed (i.e. a repeater, a switch)").
Regarding Claim 10, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein extending the semantic model of the building automation system includes providing a design network topology based on information stored in a database (Col. 4 lines 31-32, "The system provides an interface for the input of semantic information to describe a building project's topology" which includes (Col. 5 lines 9. 11) generating "instructions for wiring and actual installation of a controller based on the selected devices and their locations, orientations and mode of connection (wired, wifi, etc.)").
Regarding Claim 11, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein generating the building automation project comprises providing at least one information selected from the group consisting of: building structure information (Col. 3 line 44-47, "A building project may be described with the system, and the user may specify the project topology and select the devices to perform a given set of functions and associate those devices with different areas within the project"), network information, controller information, input/output module information, management station information, field device information, and application information.
Regarding Claim 12, Rougier teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: loading the generated building automation project on the building automation device (Col. 5 lines 18-22, "When the installation and pre-configuration is complete, the system may then connect with the controller, and configure the controller with the settings specified in the pre-configuration, downloading the appropriate drivers and software and other configurations");
and adjusting building equipment and/or a controller by the building automation device using the generated building automation project (Col. $ lines 43-48 "The automation description may contain information about how the control for that automation should be rendered on a user interface, for example, the system may render every on-off automation on a user interface as a skeuomorphic toggle switch").
Regarding Claim 13, Rougier teaches a device for generating a building automation project of a building automation system, the device comprising: an interface adapted to receive structural information regarding building equipment (Col 3 lines 11-18, "Embodiments of a system and process are disclosed by which a home builder or architect describes a house or building projects using a novel nomenclature inside a web-based application form. This information is then paired from a database of systems which may be automated. This database has a generic description of automation capabilities for families of devices irrespective of manufacturer or protocols" and (Col 13 lines 30-32) "The techniques and procedures described herein may be implemented via logic distributed in one or more computing devices");
and a computing unit comprising a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium with instructions, that when executed by the computing unit: generate a semantic model of the building automation system, including automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment (Col. 4 lines 31-40, "The system provides an interface for the input of semantic information to describe a building project's topology. The user may input known building information, for example, information on the construction, location, dimensions, airflow, window square footage, room orientation, building standard (for example, if the building is a "green" building), or other known information about the building. The system may then group rooms as nodes and edges, to give the system context as to the proximity and relation of rooms to one another, these nodes may be further grouped into units" where (Col. 4 lines 56-58) the system context further includes settings of the kitchen lights and the oven for example; (Col. 13 lines 35-65) the embodiments can be carried out on programmed computer systems);
to extend the semantic model of the building automation system by providing application information (Col 4. Lines 41-54, "units may have unit areas within them, an example of a unit area may be a kitchen This may include information about the heating, cooling and ventilation requirements of such spaces like kitchen as specified by the locale building codes. Additionally, this would allow the system to associate that room as a kitchen and apply kitchen-specific algorithms to it");
and to generate, based on the equipment information and application information of the extended semantic model of the building automation system, a building automation project (Col. 3 lines 11-22, Based on the building project and devices "the system is able to generate all user interface elements, testing, control algorithms, installation details (wiring, scheduling...) with no human interaction" thus generating a building automation project);
wherein the computing unit is further programmed to provide the generated building automation project to a building automation device via the interface (Col. 5 lines 18-22, "When the installation and pre-configuration is complete, the system may then connect with the controller, and configure the controller with the settings specified in the pre-configuration, downloading the appropriate drivers and software and other configurations" and (Col. 13 lines 35-65) the embodiments can be carried out on programmed computer systems).
Rougier does not explicitly teach but Malakuti teaches wherein application information includes instructions or routines to be processed by a controller in a semantic model ([0034] This creates, in the end, a running building automation system as well as—optionally—a configuration for an automation network hub or controller, which is able to achieve a building automation system using multiple technologies/protocols, such as KNX, BACnet, ZigBee, LONworks by translating between the actual devices, e.g. sensors, actuators, and control devices, wherein it based on a semantic based model e.g. according standard VDI 3813, comprising an automatic configuration generation for specific technologies/protocols from a function-based device specification through the following multiple transformation steps. [Abstract] A computer-implemented method for semantic-based planning, engineering, and commissioning a project in a building or home automation system, using multiple technologies/protocols of devices including sensors, actuators and control devices, the method being based on a semantic based model having an automatic configuration generation for specific technologies/protocols from a function-based device specification, the method including the following multiple transformation steps: calculating/creating a configuration for a specific protocol/technology using a mapping complex or structure of rules or processing instructions that takes into account the semantic based model, technology models, heuristics, and/or technology constraints of the devices; generating an internal model of the building automation system with communication objects as an output of the automatic created configuration calculation; transforming the internal model, depending on a targeted technology/protocol, in order to create either application programming interface (API) calls or a format for a mandatory tool, and downloading the created configuration into the building automation devices).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rougier and Malakuti since both are directed to semantic model generation and Malakuti’s controller processing application information would improve system efficiency of the modified Rougier’s system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rougier in view of Malakuti as applied above, and further in view of Bogen et al. "A Framework for Building Information Fusion" (hereinafter "Bogen").
Regarding claim 4, Rougier and Malakuti, in combination, teach the method as recited in claim 1. Neither Rougier nor Malakuti specifically teach, however Bogen teaches wherein automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment comprises at least one process selected from the group consisting of: applying computer vision methods to the structural information regarding the building equipment and applying data fusion methods to the structural information regarding the building equipment (Page 2, Section 3 Problem Statement, "Integrating this telemetry with BIM can enrich complex data fusion and data mining algorithms by considering relations and facets across multiple perspectives e.g. architectural, mechanical, electrical, energy analysis, and facility operations and maintenance (O&M)"; (Pages 3-4, Section 4 Approach: Building Information Fusion Framework) Figure 1 shows data fusion methods applied several items including space requirement information and component information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add that automatically extracting equipment information from the structural information regarding the building equipment comprises applying data fusion methods to the structural information regarding the building equipment, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bogen, into that of modified Rougier and Malakuti. Motivation to do so would have been to "generate estimations and predictions with a higher degree of certainty, accuracy, completeness, and representation" (Bogen, Page 2, Section 2 Introduction).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kondejkar (US-20220187818-A1) teaches:
[Abstract] Systems and methods for controlling industrial process automation and control systems can automatically, through the use of machine learning (ML) models and algorithms, extract plant assets from engineering diagrams and other plant engineering data sources. The systems and methods can establish asset relationships to create a plant asset registry and build an asset hierarchy from the plant assets. The systems and methods can generate an ontological knowledge base from the plant asset hierarchy, and provide an HMI for controlling the industrial process based on the plant asset hierarchy and the ontological knowledge base.
[0136] Multiple data extraction techniques can be used for each data source, both structured and unstructured, from the plant engineering data sources. The system can differentiate structured and unstructured data based on the file format or database type. Unstructured data files (e.g., email messages, word processing documents, videos, images, webpages, etc.) often include text and multimedia content without any schema, while structured data files (e.g., spreadsheets, CSV files, XML files, RDBMS, time series, graph database, etc.) contain a schema or metadata. The system can extract domain entities from these structured data sources using the schema or metadata. In a CSV file format, for example, plain text data is separated by commas with each new line in the CSV file representing a new database row and each database row having one or more fields separated by a comma. The system can use this schema to extract domain entities from the data source. An example can be seen in FIG. 25, where domain entities were extracted from an exemplary instruments index data source in CSV format. Among the domain entities and associated relationships extracted from this data source are Plant, Area, Unit, Loop, Tag, Process Function, and the like, as indicated in the first row of the table. Instances of these domain entities are shown in the subsequent rows.
Goyal (US-20200159376-A1) teaches:
[Abstract] A building interface system for generating a custom user interface, the building interface system includes one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon, the instructions causing one or more processors to receive user input defining one or more graphical requirements from a user device, retrieve a semantic building system model based on the one or more graphical requirements, wherein the semantic building system model comprises semantic information describing a building system, retrieve one or more graphic templates based on the semantic building system model and the one or more graphical requirements, the one or more graphic templates providing a generic description of one or more user interface elements, generate the custom user interface based on the one or more graphic templates and the semantic building system model, and cause the user device to display the custom user interface.
Austern (US-20210073433-A1) teaches:
[0134] In some embodiments, a semantic analysis of a BIM file may yield information regarding the type, model, or manufacturer of furniture represented as BIM objects. In these files a semantic analysis may also yield relationships or associations between different elements in the floor plan, for example an association of a wall with a door within it, or a wall with the room it borders. A semantic analysis may include accessing and extracting data from a BIM file regarding room demarcations, otherwise referred to as room contours or room boundaries. Semantic analysis can also yield information regarding the function of a room or element (e.g. sleeping area, office, storage space, etc.). A semantic analysis may include Natural Language Processing algorithms such as word2vector, which may be used to infer semantic meaning even when it is not clearly represented in the data (i.e. algorithms that infer that a hallway is another word for a corridor or that a recliner is a type of sofa). A semantic analysis may be combined with geometric analysis and/or machine learning models.
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 REHANA PERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-7079. 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.
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights