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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/19/2025 has been entered.
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 41-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical calculations.
Claim 41 recites the abstract idea of calculating, storing, distributing and/or displaying building or structure performance data and scores [Field of Invention]. In claim 41, this idea is described by the following claim steps:
acquire or receive at least data or information from the remote building or structure;
receiving at least one of sensor data and information acquired or received;
performing benchmark analysis to generate benchmark data by comparing the received sensor data or information to anonymized building or structure performance data stored in a benchmark database;
compute and periodically update normalized building or structure performance scores derived from at least two of water, energy, human-experience, transportation , and waste sensor data or information, the computations and updates being performed according to weighting and normalization formulas;
authenticate and transmit updated building or structure performance scores;
store the received updated building or structure performance scores; and
display the updated building or structure performance scores;
wherein on the basis of comparing the benchmarked normalized building or structure performance scores to the performance scores generated for the remote building or structure, the remote building or structure is certified or not certified as meeting predetermined building or structure performance certification standards.
This idea falls within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as required when receiving data, performing benchmark analysis, computing and updating scores and transmitting information related to the results. The noted abstract idea is also directed to Mathematical Concepts such as that required during calculations and performing a benchmark analysis.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 12 and 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
-an internet-connected central web server comprising a processor and corresponding on-transitory computer-readable memory, the CWS being configured to operate in conjunction with a remote dynamic plaque device;
-means for receiving at least one sensor data;
-means for performing benchmark analysis;
-scoring calculation means;
-means for authenticating;
-the remote device;
-at least one processor and corresponding non-transitory computer-readable memory;
-a memory;
-a graphics processor configured to render animated visual displays on the remote device.
However, using a computer environment such as a server, software, processor, memory and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Calculating, storing, distributing and/or displaying building or structure performance data and scores can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a server comprising a processor and a memory to perform the steps.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a computer system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 41 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for business or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 42-53 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claim 43 further limits the abstract idea by introducing wherein if one or more of the performance scores associated with the remote building or structure is determined to have fallen below expected levels, or of anomalies are discovered in the sensor data or information associated with the remote building or structure, a notification or alert is generated and provided to a user, occupant, or building manager of the remote building or structure. Determining a score have fallen below expected levels and notifying such is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a server. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 44 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation wherein building of performance sensor data or information further comprises at least one of occupancy, lighting use, plug load use and server use data or information. Further embellishing the invention by defining the data gathered does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 45-49 further limits the abstract idea by introducing wherein the remote device further comprises a memory configured to store the received updated scores or animation code or data and wherein the remote device is further configured to show the performance scores on the display such that at least some of the scores have their own icons, segments or paths corresponding thereto and wherein the icons, segments or paths are straight, curved, circular, semicircular, elliptical or arrowhead-shaped, wherein at least one of the length, width, thickness, color, hue, saturation, darkness, lightness, brightness, brilliance, dullness, contrast, intensity, density or pattern of each icon, segment or path is proportional to the building performance score corresponding thereto and wherein the CWS is further configured to transfer display animation code or instructions to the remote device in response to receiving an authorized request therefrom. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of storing and displaying information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 50 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the remote device is one of a display plaque and a dashboard device. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of displaying information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a user device merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 51 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation further comprising at least one building or structure data acquisition device configured to receive input signals from a plurality of sensors located in or around the predetermined building or structure, the input signals representing building or structure performance data corresponding to the predetermined building or structure and to at least two of water data, energy data, human experience data, transportation data, and waste data. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of receiving information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a user device merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 52 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the remote device is further configured to download, store and execute the animation code or instructions received from the CWS . Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a user device merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 53 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitations wherein the system is configured to provide information to users or occupants of the remote building or structure based on the remote building or structure’s current performance and suggest methods to at least one of improve building performance, reduce waste, and optimize efficiency. Transmitting data is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a processor. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Remarks 10/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the previously presented and maintained 35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
page 1, “each of these new claims requires computer hardware, network communication and algorithmic processing of large data sets that cannot practically be performed by a human” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, the claims at hand recite generic computer functions to facilitate an abstract process of analyzing data in order to perform a benchmark analysis and determine a building score, which is as noted above is an abstract idea that falls in the category of a mental process. To further clarify, the system is receiving at least one of sensor data and information, the amount of data is not defined in the claims. Furthermore, even if the process is a cumbersome process with a vast amount of data, the process is not less abstract.
In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., receiving sensor streams from building-management and occupancy sensors through a data-ingestion means, generating an transmitting encrypted information and data over a secure communication interface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim generically recite receiving data from at leas one of sensor data and information representative of performance of a building or structure.
On page 2, Applicant further argues some of the identified abstract process as requiring computer hardware, network communication and algorithmic processing of large data set that cannot be performed by a human. Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that the claims at hand recite generic computer functions to facilitate an abstract process of analyzing data in order to perform a benchmark analysis and determine a building score, which is as noted above is an abstract idea that falls in the category of a mental process. The system is receiving at least one of sensor data and information, the amount of data is not defined in the claims. Furthermore, even if the process is a cumbersome process with a vast amount of data, the process is not less abstract. Furthermore, Configuring a centra web server to perform a benchmark analysis and calculate a building performance score using the benchmark data is simply automating what could be alternatively performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
On page 2, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, integrate the abstract idea into a practical and detailed technological application because they are tied to particular machines which improve the functioning of the computer system itself by providing real-time, threshold-triggered updates that reduce bandwidth latency, and by securing data transmissions through authenticated channels. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant conflates mental processes performed using a computer with a technological solution. Many mental processes may be performed using a computer, but are not technological. At best, Applicant’s claim 41 merely improves human mental processes by “us[ing] computer components as a tool.”; see Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commce’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘Two-Way Media asserts that the claim solves various technical problems, including excessive loads on a source server, network congestion, unwelcome variations in delivery times, scalability of networks, and lack of precise recordkeeping. But claim 1 here only uses generic functional language to achieve these purported solutions.”). Applicant is merely automating a process that could be alternatively performed in the human mind, as a mental process, with the aid of pen and paper, and is not a solution to a technological problem. Furthermore, the claims at hand are merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that the process and steps effect a transformation of raw building data, environmental and occupancy sensor data into normalized, benchmark key performance indicator scores that drive automated or user-visible building system adjustments. As a first matter, the Examiner points out to aspects of the abstract process and clarifies that there is no normalization of the data. The requirement of the system is, very generically, to compute and periodically update normalized building performance scores…the computations and updates being performed according to weighting and normalization formulas, which is a process that could be performed in the mind, perhaps with the aid of pen and paper and which is part of the abstract process. Again Applicant argues the claims provide a technological solution, it appears that the Applicant conflates mental processes performed using a computer with a technological solution. However, many mental processes may be performed using a computer, but are not technological.
Applicant further argues new claims 54-66, however no new claims are presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beaulieu, US 20130226853, DISPLAYING INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN OPERATION STATE OF A BUILDING. The present disclosure relates to devices, methods, and systems for displaying information associated with an operation state of a building.
Hood, US 20210018335, UTILITY MONITORING AND ANALYTICS SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD. The disclosure relates generally to a system and method for monitoring and analyzing a building's utilities and in particular to a system and method for providing analytical insight into the utility data as part of a business' security strategy.
Kamel, US 20130134962, ENERGY SEARCH ENGINE METHODS AND SYSTEMS. This disclosure relates generally to evaluating energy performance of a building, a building system, and/or a collection of buildings locally or over a large geographic area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629