DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 5 and 10 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to paragraphs [0036] and [0124] are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the objections directed to the specification in the previous Office Action.
Amendments to claims 1, 17, and 20 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) directed to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20 in the previous Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a twin manager configured to provide” in claim 2; and
“the twin manager is configured to maintain” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1: Claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations “the involvement type indicates whether the relationship between the first object represented by the first indicia and a respective second object of the one or more second objects represented by a respective one of the one or more second indicia is a referential involvement, a command involvement, or an unbound involvement, wherein the unbound involvement indicates an unbound relationship where the relationship between the first object and the respective second object previously existed but no longer exists”, “generate an involvement map”, and “the involvement map including a first indicia representing the first object and one or more second indicia representing each of the one or more second objects, the first indicia and each of the one or more second indicia connected via a connector line, the connector line including the involvement type disposed therealong” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, such as observing and evaluating involvement type information, and generating mapping information that includes objects and lines connecting these objects. Thus, these limitation recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “A building system for a building having one or more building subsystems, the building system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” and “operate the component of the one or more building subsystems represented by the first object in accordance with the relationship between the first object and the one or more second objects indicated by the involvement type” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more utilizing a generic computer and/or computer components as tools to implement mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements “acquire a selection of a first object, the first object representing a component of the one or more building subsystems” and “acquire information regarding one or more second objects associated with the first object, the information including an involvement type for a relationship between the first object and each of the one or more second objects” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Furthermore, “for display via a graphical user interface” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely displaying data. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims 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 “A building system for a building having one or more building subsystems, the building system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” and “operate the component of the one or more building subsystems represented by the first object in accordance with the relationship between the first object and the one or more second objects indicated by the involvement type” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Furthermore, regarding the limitations “acquire a selection of a first object, the first object representing a component of the one or more building subsystems”, “acquire information regarding one or more second objects associated with the first object, the information including an involvement type for a relationship between the first object and each of the one or more second objects”, and “for display via a graphical user interface” the courts have identified merely gathering data and merely displaying data/information as well-understood, routine and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instructions and computer components to apply the judicial exception, mere data gathering, and/or merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 2-16: In view of the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1, claims 2-16 are also not patent eligible under 35 USC §101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. More specifically:
Claims 2-4 are directed to utilizing generic computing devices as a tool and/or computing instructions to implement the judicial exception which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a meaningful manner.
Claims 6-9 and 11 are directed to further details regarding the involvement and relationship information which are abstract concepts that can be mentally observed and evaluated.
Claims 12-15 are directed to further data transmission and data display operations which are insignificant extra-solution activities and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a meaningful manner.
Claim 16 is directed to handling information associated with a “third object” similar to the handling information associated with the first and second objects as recited in claim 1. As such, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claim 1, claim 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 17-19: Claims 17-19 are directed to a method corresponding to the active functions implemented by the system disclosed in claims 1 and 16. Therefore, in view of the reasons presented above with respect to claims 1 and 16, claims 17-19 are also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are ineligible.
With respect to claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a building system corresponding to the system disclosed in claims 1, 5, and 16. Therefore, in view of the reasons presented above with respect to claims 1, 5, and 16, claim 20 is also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Remarks, pages 12-15), the Examiner notes that the limitations “operate the component of the one or more building subsystems represented by the first object in accordance with the relationship between the first object and the one or more second objects indicated by the involvement type” are recited at a high-level of generality and do not amount to more than utilizing a generic computer and/or computer components as tools to implement mere instructions to apply the exception.
More specifically, the limitations do not identify any specifics of the operations of the building subsystems and/or how the claimed “relationships” and “involvement types” are utilized for these operations. As such, these limitations are directed to utilizing building subsystems as a tool at a high-level of generality to “apply” the judicial exception which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a meaningful manner. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Consequently, the Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 directed to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20. For more details, please see the corresponding rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art references do not disclose displaying unbound involvement type as a part of a generated involvement map that indicates an unbound relationship between objects where a relationship between the objects previously existed but no longer exists.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morrison et al. (US 2014/0365896 A1) discloses a building management system that displays objects in map-bound and map-unbound layers (see paragraphs 55, 144, 145).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194