DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9, 11-17,19-20 and 25 are pending.
Claims 10, 18, 21-22 and 24 are cancelled.
Examiner decided to withdraw 112 rejection because applicant’s amendment overcome the rejections.
Examiner decided to maintain 101 rejection because applicant’s amendment to the claims did not overcome the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding 101:
In response to Applicant’s Argument, Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception” that “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the abstract idea exception has deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601-602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)). To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts; 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity; and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, arguments are moot. (Please see MPEP 2106.04(a).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office has not identified the specific limitations considered or any rationale as to why these limitations are not enough to qualify as significantly more, examiner refers to language collection, analysis and display information in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, (671 F.3d 1317, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) ” do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments with respect art related to claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, 23 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a system comprising a combination of “an energy load data interface to receive energy load data…”, “data partition engine to apply a clustering model to the energy load data…”, “temporal processing engine to segment and aggregate the energy load data…”, “a visualisation engine to generate visualisation data from the output …” and “an output interface to output…….” is a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a data partition engine to apply a clustering model to the energy load data to determine one or more partitions within the energy load data”; “wherein the data partition engine is configured to apply a probabilistic mixture model to the energy load data and wherein each of the plurality of partitions comprises a continuous group of data samples over time within the energy load data”; “ a temporal processing engine to segment and aggregate the energy load data over a set of predefined time periods, wherein the temporal processing engine is independently applied to partitions determined by the data partition engine” and “a visualisation engine to generate visualisation data from the output of the temporal processing engine, the visualisation data comprising respective sets of data for partitions determined by the data partition engine”. These limitations - recite a mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Applicant uses modeling and they are using mathematical formula to calculate. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an energy load data interface to receive energy load data originating from energy use sensors for the building”, “wherein the energy load data comprises time-series energy consumption measurements for the building”; and “an output interface to output the visualisation data for display”.
The determining patterns using processors/computer receiving data and displaying data recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation receiving data, data partition, aggregate the energy load data, generate visualisation data and displaying data at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does 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 “a processor, a memory storing instructions that when implemented by the processor implement” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Receiving data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “modelling” limitation, as discussed above, represents mere data output and is a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 20190324444 A1) and see 2106.05.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 25 has similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Dependent claims did not recite any additional element that would overcome the rejections. Therefore dependent claims also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. USPGPUB 2012/0215369 (hereinafter “Desai”) in view of Cella et al. USPGPUB 2019/0324444 (hereinafter “Cella”).
As to claim 1, Desai teaches a system for the determination of energy consumption patterns for a building (paragraph 0061-0065), the system comprising: a processor; a memory storing instructions that when implemented by the processor implement (paragraph 0039-0041):
an energy load data interface to receive energy load data originating from energy use sensors for the building (paragraph 0062-0063), wherein the energy load data comprises time-series energy consumption measurements for the building (paragraph 0088-0090 and FIG. 5-6); a data partition engine to apply a clustering model to the energy load data to determine a plurality of partitions within the energy load data (paragraph 0080-0082 and paragraph 0087-0092 FIG. 4-8a); a temporal processing engine to segment and aggregate the energy load data over a set of predefined time periods, wherein the temporal processing engine is independently applied to partitions determined by the data partition engine (paragraph 0094-0109 and FIG. 5-10); a visualisation engine to generate visualisation data from the output of the temporal processing engine, the visualisation data comprising respective sets of data for partitions determined by the data partition engine; and an output interface to output the visualisation data for display (paragraph 0093-0110).
Desai does not explicitly teach wherein the data partition engine is configured to apply a probabilistic mixture model to the energy load data and wherein each of the plurality of partitions comprises a continuous group of data samples over time within the energy load data.
However, Cella teaches wherein the data partition engine is configured to apply a probabilistic mixture model to the energy load data (paragraph 2398 “data analysis circuit may be structured to utilize a neural network model to detect the anomalous condition. The neural network model may be a probabilistic neural network that predicts a fault condition for one of the plurality of components. The neural network model may be a time delay neural network trained on data collected over time from the plurality of input channels. The neural network model may be a convolutional neural network which provides a recommended route change for one of the plurality of collector routes of the data collector. The data analysis circuit may include an expert system that switches a structure of the neural network based on the data collected from the plurality of input channel” and paragraph 1555) and wherein each of the plurality of partitions comprises a continuous group of data samples over time within the energy load data (paragraph 3042-3064 “data analysis circuit modifies a data collection parameter of the data collector to reduce the amount of data being collected from an individual input channel by reducing the sampling rate of the input channel or reducing the sampling resolution of the input channel”).
Desai and Cella are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above energy management system, as taught by Desai, and incorporating probabilistic mixture model, as taught by Cella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improved methods and systems for data collection in industrial environments, as well as for improved methods and systems for using collected data to provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments, as suggested by Cella (paragraph 0007).
As to claim 2, Cancelled.
As to claim 3, cancelled.
As to claims 4 and 15, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cell further teaches wherein the probabilistic mixture model comprises a Gaussian mixture model (paragraph 0326).
As to claims 5 and 16, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cell further teaches wherein the data partition engine applies Bayesian inference to infer probabilistic distributions for the parameters of the Gaussian mixture model (paragraph 0336 and 0923).
As to claim 6, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches further comprising: an occupancy engine to estimate periods of occupancy for the building using the output of the temporal processing engine, wherein the visualisation data is generated using the periods of occupancy (paragraph 0061-0075 and abstract).
As to claim 7, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches wherein the visualisation data comprises an indication of estimated periods of occupancy as output by the occupancy engine, and wherein the system further comprises: a user interface to receive validation data for the estimated periods of occupancy from a user, wherein the visualisation engine is configured to generate visualisation data from the output of the temporal processing engine and data indicating a confirmed set of periods of occupancy that is determined from the validation data and the estimated periods of occupancy output by the occupancy engine (paragraph 0124-0136).
As to claim 8, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches wherein the visualisation engine comprises: a benchmarking engine to output at least one energy efficiency metric for the building, the benchmarking engine being configured to determine the at least one energy efficiency metric using an output of the temporal processing engine as applied to a plurality of buildings, wherein the at least one energy efficiency metric forms part of the visualisation data (paragraph 0110-0124).
10. (Canceled)
As to claim 11, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches wherein the at least one energy efficiency metric comprises one or more of: a base load factor representing a base-level energy consumption; and a peak load factor representing a maximum energy consumption (paragraph 0002-0006).
As to claim 12, related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 13, is related to claim 2 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 17, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches comprising: processing the aggregated energy load data for the one or more partitions to estimate periods of occupancy for the building within the set of predefined time periods; indicating the estimated periods of occupancy within the visualisation data (paragraph 0061-0075 and abstract); displaying the visualisation data to a user; receiving validation data from the user indicating confirmation or correction of the estimated periods of occupancy; and using the validation data and the estimated periods of occupancy to determine occupancy data for use in generating additional energy use metrics for the building based on the aggregated energy load data for the first and second partitions (paragraph 0124-0136 and FIG. 4-9).
18. (Canceled)
21. (Canceled)
22. (Canceled)
As to claim 23, the combination of Desai and Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Desai further teaches further comprising: determining a set of control actions available within the building; predicting a change in the aggregated energy load data for at least one of the one or more partitions for at least one of the set of control actions; and outputting recommendations for control actions that are predicted to reduce the aggregated energy load (paragraph 0027-00355 and 0062-0075).
24. (Canceled)
As to claim 25, related to claim 12 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims are rejected by 101 and it has to overcome 101 rejections.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
He et al USP 10460274 B2 a systems and methods for performing energy disaggregation of a whole-house energy usage waveform, based at least in part on the whole-house energy usage profile, training data, and predetermined generic models, including: a module for pairing impulses identified in the whole-house energy usage waveform to indicate an appliance cycle, pairing impulses with at least one up transition with at least one down transition; a module for bundling impulses that are representative of an appliance cycle; a classification module, which upon determination of a type of appliance associated with bundles, is configured to classify the bundles of transitions in accordance with bundles exhibited by similar appliances with similar characteristics; and utilizing such pairing module and module for bundling to perform energy disaggregation. Moreover, the present invention sets forth graphical user interfaces for the presentation of such data and the receipt of user-supplied validation and information.
Nesler et al. USPGPUB 20100324962 A1 teaches a building manager includes a communications interface configured to receive information from a smart energy grid. The building manager further includes an integrated control layer configured to receive inputs from and to provide outputs to a plurality of building subsystems. The integrated control layer includes a plurality of control algorithm modules configured to process the inputs and to determine the outputs. The building manager further includes a fault detection and diagnostics layer configured to use statistical analysis on the inputs received from the integrated control layer to detect and diagnose faults. The building manager yet further includes a demand response layer configured to process the information received from the smart energy grid to determine adjustments to the plurality of control algorithms of the integrated control layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119