DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an election/restriction requirement filed on 4/16/26 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 18-30 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 18-30 in the reply filed on 4/6/26 is
acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim18 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a
grammatical error in the comparing limitation of claim 18. The word “stucture’s” appears to be spelled incorrectly.
In claim 27, there appears to be a grammatical error. The word “alterntives” appears to be spelled incorrectly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,436,386. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the parent application as noted above.
With respect to claim 18, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to execute a method for analyzing sensor data” (Col. 5 lines 8-11 “Another embodiment comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to execute a method for analyzing sensor data”)
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “the method comprising: receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with a structure's resource usage” (Col. 4 lines 27-29 “ obtaining both resource model and post-occupancy resource use data from multiple built structures”, Col. 4 lines 40-43 “receive design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built environment comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within the first built environment”)
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “obtaining both resource model and post-operation resource use data from multiple built structures” Col. 4 lines 27-29 “ obtaining both resource model and post-occupancy resource use data from multiple built structures”, obtaining a design, including design features”)
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the post-operation resource use data from the multiple built structures comprises data for at least 50 million sq. feet of occupied space” Col. 14 lines 2-7 “According to one embodiment, the JOULEA system includes at least 10 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 20 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 40 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 50 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 100 million square feet of data.”)
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices, which of the structure's features has and resource use that deviates from a previously generated building energy model (BEM)” Col. 5 lines 12-16 “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM”, Col. 10 lines 5-9 “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “comparing the structure's feature having deviated use to the same feature in the data for the multiple built structures” Col. 5 lines 12-16 “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM”, Col. 5 lines 20-22 “In addition, the system compares the design against operational data to determine whether the design is likely to actually be operated in the manner intended”, Col. 10 lines 5-9 “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “and determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the multiple built structure data, the accuracy of the BEM.” Col. 12 lines 4-10 “The system can then compare the expectations and actual construction against the operational data to understand the complete lifecycle of the building. With this information, subsequent building projects can be improved both in design and/or construction. Likewise, the BEMs in the design phase for future projects may be rendered much more accurate.”)];
With respect to claim 19, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “suggesting, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the data, ways to prevent deviations between the actual building and structure's resource usage and the BEM.” Col. 5 lines 12-16 “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM”, Col. 10 lines 5-9 “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”
With respect to claim 20, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the suggestions are made on a feature by feature basis.” Col. 10 lines 5-9 “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”
With respect to claim 21, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the sensors are located inside and outside the building.” Col. 11 lines 8-13 “Sensors that are typical in the monitoring industry will be deployed throughout the building, inside and out, to detect levels of usage. In addition, sensors can be placed on system equipment to see if the equipment is performing to the level designed by the MEP engineers during the design phase.”)];
With respect to claim 22, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “A computer implemented system for the design, construction and management of a built structure” Col. 4 lines 36-39 “Another embodiment comprises a computer implemented system for the design, construction and operation of a built environment, comprising a memory device for storing a set of instructions”)];
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “a memory device for storing a set of instructions; one or more hardware processors to execute the set of instructions” (Col. 5 lines 8-11 “Another embodiment comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to execute a method for analyzing sensor data”)
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “receive one or more of design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built structure comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within or contacted with the first built structure” Col. 4 lines 40-43 “receive design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built environment comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within the first built environment;”
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “receive one or more of design data, construction data or operational resource use data for a second built structure from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform” Col. 4 lines 40-43 “receive design, construction or operational data for a second built environment from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform”)];
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “compare the design data, construction data and operational resource use data of the first built structure with the design, construction or operational data for the second built structure” Col. 4 lines 46-49 “compare the design data, construction data and operational resource use data of the first environment with the design, construction or operational data of the second built environment”)];
U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built structure.” Col. 4 lines 49-53 “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform and/or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built environment.”)];
With respect to claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive limitation as claim 21 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 24, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the sensors are installed in the built structure during the construction of the building.” Col. 3 lines 38-40 “In new construction, the sensors will be installed as part of the planning of the original construction during the design phase.”)];
With respect to claim 25, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the operational resource use data further comprises occupant feedback.” Col. 5 lines 27-30 “The system can collect data from any available source, including, for example, the design software, construction software, operational sensors, resource use studies, occupant feedback and the like.”)];
With respect to claim 26, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the method is carried out on a single feature and its associated resource model.” Col. 3 lines 34-35 “determining the accuracy of the resource model for the new construction.”, Col. 3 lines 46-49
“According to another embodiment, JOULEA can compare the post-occupancy data to the original design and energy model of the building to determine where inaccuracies are found in the resource model.”)];
With respect to claim 27, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the alterntives are provided in real- time.” Col. 4 lines 49-53 “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform and/or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built environment.”, Col. 7 lines 35-38 “The information would then be analyzed, in real time, to provide recommendation for improving resource use through changes to one or more of the design(s), construction or operation of the building.”)];
With respect to claim 28, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the design data is received from a platform chosen from one or more of Revit, SketchUp, TRANE TRACE, Carrier HAP, DesignBuilder, Rhino 3D, Grasshopper for Rhino, Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper, Dynamo Studio, etap, and EasyPower.” Col. 8 lines 26-33 “The system and processes described herein pair seamlessly with the way Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) firms use software in the design environment and construction such as Revit, SketchUp, TRANE TRACE, Carrier HAP, DesignBuilder, Rhino 3D, Grasshopper for Rhino, Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper, Dynamo Studio, etap, EasyPower, etc, through plug-ins, APIs and the like.”)];
With respect to claim 29, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein one or more of the hardware processors tracks the completion of construction requirements.” Col. 9 lines 32-39 “According to one embodiment, if using the system construction tracker, the verification system is very intuitive in that personnel are able to verify and keep track of their construction assignments and tasks via a graphical user interface. The encrypted interface allows for communication amongst the personnel and allows the key stakeholders of a project (i.e. the owner/architect) to keep track of completion status.”)];
With respect to claim 30, U.S. Patent 11,436,386 teaches “wherein the system further comprises an interactive visualization dashboard.” Col. 9 lines 32-39 “According to one embodiment, if using the system construction tracker, the verification system is very intuitive in that personnel are able to verify and keep track of their construction assignments and tasks via a graphical user interface. The encrypted interface allows for communication amongst the personnel and allows the key stakeholders of a project (i.e. the owner/architect) to keep track of completion status.”)];
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.
Claim18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 18 and 22
Regarding step 1, claims 18 and 22 are directed towards a method and system which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 18 recites “determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices, which of the structure's features has and resource use that deviates from a previously generated building energy model (BEM)”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites “comparing the structure's feature having deviated use to the same feature in the data for the multiple built structures”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites “and determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the multiple built structure data, the accuracy of the BEM.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitations of “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with a structure's resource usage” and “obtaining both resource model and post-operation resource use data from multiple built structures, wherein the post-operation resource use data from the multiple built structures comprises data for at least 50 million sq. feet of occupied space” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor and medium. The processor and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with a structure's resource usage” and “obtaining both resource model and post-operation resource use data from multiple built structures, wherein the post-operation resource use data from the multiple built structures comprises data for at least 50 million sq. feet of occupied space” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 of the processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 22
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 22 recites “compare the design data, construction data and operational resource use data of the first built structure with the design, construction or operational data for the second built structure”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitations of “receive one or more of design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built structure comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within or contacted with the first built structure” and “receive one or more of design data, construction data or operational resource use data for a second built structure from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built structure.” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor and memory device. The processor and memory device are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of” receive one or more of design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built structure comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within or contacted with the first built structure”, “receive one or more of design data, construction data or operational resource use data for a second built structure from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform” and “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built structure.” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 of the processor and memory device amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 19
Dependent claim 19 recites “suggesting, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the data, ways to prevent deviations between the actual building and structure's resource usage and the BEM.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 20
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the suggestions are made on a feature by feature basis.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the sensors are located inside and outside the building.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the sensors are located both inside and outside the built structure.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 24
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the sensors are installed in the built structure during the construction of the building.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 25
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein the operational resource use data further comprises occupant feedback.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 26
Dependent claim 26 recites “wherein the method is carried out on a single feature and its associated resource model.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 27
Dependent claim 27 recites “wherein the alterntives are provided in real- time.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 28
Dependent claim 28 recites “wherein the design data is received from a platform chosen from one or more of Revit, SketchUp, TRANE TRACE, Carrier HAP, DesignBuilder, Rhino 3D, Grasshopper for Rhino, Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper, Dynamo Studio, etap, and EasyPower.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 29
Dependent claim 29 recites “wherein one or more of the hardware processors tracks the completion of construction requirements.”. The claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, the limitation of “wherein one or more of the hardware processors tracks the completion of construction requirements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the completion of construction requirements are being tracked. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 30
Dependent claim 30 recites “wherein the system further comprises an interactive visualization dashboard.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 18-30 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motahar
(U.S. PGPub 2020/0057825).
With respect to claim 18, Motahar discloses “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to execute a method for analyzing sensor data” as [Motahar (paragraph [0021] “Another embodiment comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to execute a method for analyzing sensor data, the method comprising, receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage”)];
“the method comprising: receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with a structure's resource usage” as [Motahar (paragraph [0017] “obtaining both resource model and post-occupancy resource use data from multiple built structures, obtaining a design, including design features”, Motahar paragraph [0018] “receive design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built environment comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within the first built environment”)];
“obtaining both resource model and post-operation resource use data from multiple built structures” as [Motahar (paragraph [0017] “obtaining both resource model and post-occupancy resource use data from multiple built structures, obtaining a design, including design features”)];
“wherein the post-operation resource use data from the multiple built structures comprises data for at least 50 million sq. feet of occupied space” as [Motahar (paragraph [0074] “According to one embodiment, the JOULEA system includes at least 10 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 20 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 40 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 50 million square feet of data, for example, at least about 100 million square feet of data.”)];
“determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices, which of the structure's features has and resource use that deviates from a previously generated building energy model (BEM)” as [Motahar (paragraph [0021] “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM”, Motahar paragraph [0057] “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”)];
“comparing the structure's feature having deviated use to the same feature in the data for the multiple built structures” as [Motahar (paragraph [0021] “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM”, Motahar paragraph [0022] “In addition, the system compares the design against operational data to determine whether the design is likely to actually be operated in the manner intended.”, Motahar paragraph [0057] “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”)];
“and determining, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the multiple built structure data, the accuracy of the BEM.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0066] “The system can then compare the expectations and actual construction against the operational data to understand the complete lifecycle of the building. With this information, subsequent building projects can be improved both in design and/or construction. Likewise, the BEMs in the design phase for future projects may be rendered much more accurate.”)];
With respect to claim 19, Motahar discloses “suggesting, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices and the data, ways to prevent deviations between the actual building and structure's resource usage and the BEM.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0021] “receiving, from one or more sensor devices, information associated with building and resource usage, determining, from the information gathered from one or more sensor devices, where the building and resource use deviates from a previously generated BEM, suggesting, from the information gathered from the one or more sensor devices, ways to prevent deviations between the actual building resource usage and the BEM.”, Motahar paragraph [0057] “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”)];
With respect to claim 20, Motahar discloses “wherein the suggestions are made on a feature by feature basis.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0057] “According to one embodiment, when construction deviations are noticed through media, the system has the ability to analyze the impact of the deviation on resource use and provide new recommendations to mitigate or reduce the impact of the construction deviation.”)];
With respect to claim 21, Motahar discloses “wherein the sensors are located inside and outside the building.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0062] “Sensors that are typical in the monitoring industry will be deployed throughout the building, inside and out, to detect levels of usage. In addition, sensors can be placed on system equipment to see if the equipment is performing to the level designed by the MEP engineers during the design phase.”)];
With respect to claim 22, Motahar discloses “A computer implemented system for the design, construction and management of a built structure” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “Another embodiment comprises a computer implemented system for the design, construction and operation of a built environment, comprising a memory device for storing a set of instructions”)];
“a memory device for storing a set of instructions; one or more hardware processors to execute the set of instructions” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “Another embodiment comprises a computer implemented system for the design, construction and operation of a built environment, comprising a memory device for storing a set of instructions; one or more hardware processors to execute the set of instructions”)];
“receive one or more of design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built structure comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within or contacted with the first built structure” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “receive design data, construction data and operational resource use data from a first built environment comprising information from at least two sensors positioned within the first built environment;”
“receive one or more of design data, construction data or operational resource use data for a second built structure from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “receive design, construction or operational data for a second built environment from a design platform, construction platform, or operations platform”)];
“compare the design data, construction data and operational resource use data of the first built structure with the design, construction or operational data for the second built structure” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “compare the design data, construction data and operational resource use data of the first environment with the design, construction or operational data of the second built environment”)];
“and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built structure.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform and/or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built environment.”)];
With respect to claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive limitation as claim 21 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 24, Motahar discloses “wherein the sensors are installed in the built structure during the construction of the building.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0012] “In new construction, the sensors will be installed as part of the planning of the original construction during the design phase.”)];
With respect to claim 25, Motahar discloses “wherein the operational resource use data further comprises occupant feedback.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0022] “The system can collect data from any available source, including, for example, the design software, construction software, operational sensors, resource use studies, occupant feedback and the like.”)];
With respect to claim 26, Motahar discloses “wherein the method is carried out on a single feature and its associated resource model.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0017] “determining the accuracy of the resource model for the new construction.”, Motahar paragraph [0073] “According to another embodiment, JOULEA can compare the post-occupancy data to the original design and energy model of the building to determine where inaccuracies are found in the resource model.”)];
With respect to claim 27, Motahar discloses “wherein the alterntives are provided in real- time.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0018] “and provide design, construction or operations alternatives to one or more of the design platform, the construction platform and/or the operations platform to improve resource use in the second built environment.”, Motahar paragraph [0041] “The information would then be analyzed, in real time, to provide recommendation for improving resource use through changes to one or more of the design(s), construction or operation of the building.”)];
With respect to claim 28, Motahar discloses “wherein the design data is received from a platform chosen from one or more of Revit, SketchUp, TRANE TRACE, Carrier HAP, DesignBuilder, Rhino 3D, Grasshopper for Rhino, Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper, Dynamo Studio, etap, and EasyPower.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0046] “The system and processes described herein pair seamlessly with the way Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) firms use software in the design environment and construction such as Revit, SketchUp, TRANE TRACE, Carrier HAP, DesignBuilder, Rhino 3D, Grasshopper for Rhino, Ladybug and Honeybee for Grasshopper, Dynamo Studio, etap, EasyPower, etc, through plug-ins, APIs and the like.”)];
With respect to claim 29, Motahar discloses “wherein one or more of the hardware processors tracks the completion of construction requirements.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0053] “According to one embodiment, if using the system construction tracker, the verification system is very intuitive in that personnel are able to verify and keep track of their construction assignments and tasks via a graphical user interface. The encrypted interface allows for communication amongst the personnel and allows the key stakeholders of a project (i.e. the owner/architect) to keep track of completion status.”)];
With respect to claim 30, Motahar discloses “wherein the system further comprises an interactive visualization dashboard.” as [Motahar (paragraph [0053] “According to one embodiment, if using the system construction tracker, the verification system is very intuitive in that personnel are able to verify and keep track of their construction assignments and tasks via a graphical user interface. The encrypted interface allows for communication amongst the personnel and allows the key stakeholders of a project (i.e. the owner/architect) to keep track of completion status.”, Claim 13 of the Motahar reference “wherein the system further comprises an interactive visualization dashboard”)];
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Hu (CN 112001013) is an intelligent management system based on BIM model resource, relating to the technical field of resource management, where the system based on Revit platform architecture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights