DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 5/16/2023.
Claims 1 – 15 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 3/28/2023 claims foreign priority to JP 2022-053556 dated 3/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS provided.
Drawings
The drawings dated 3/28/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
Abstract
The abstract dated 3/28/2023 has 141 words, 15 lines, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
Title
The title is objected to because it is not descriptive of the claimed invention. The title merely recites “management system, management method, and management storage medium.” Such a title is not acceptable. A new title is required. See MPEP 606.01
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 23 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards signal per se as the claims recites “a storage medium storing a computer program.” See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites: “A management System”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Yes. The claim recites”
“… comprising:
A completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes;
An environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, an environment attributes;
A rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID to associate the completion member, the environment conditions, and the operation rule with each other;
An operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element; and
An operation rule creating unit configured to create the operation rule table by associating data in the completion database, the environment database, and the rule database” which is a process of organizing data into an set of tables which is merely the mental process of organizing data according to a schema (i.e., underlying organizational pattern, conceptual framework, or plan).
Database_Schema_2003 (Chapter 3, Designing the GIS Database Schema 2/27/03 11:35 AM downloaded from: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/0471204889.c03.pdf) states:
Page 47: “… database designers use the word Schema to refer to the diagram and documents that lay out the structure of the database and the relationships that exist between elements of the database… designers spend a lot of time thinking about the schema… it is usually possible to design your database with paper and pencil… the ability to erase entire tables, delete relationships, add relationships, and so on, it is sometimes easier with pencil and paper or on a whiteboard than mastering a new set of tools…”.
Page 58: “… sketch out the detailed schema diagram. This is best done on a piece of paper where you can move tables around and erase mistakes easily…”
Therefore, the organization of data into a set of relational tables (i.e., a database), according to those of ordinary skill in the art, is the mental process of deciding how to organize data and is performed by a designer who may find it easy to use a pencil and paper or whiteboard to write down their schema for the various table reference IDs, attributes, and elements.
The claim recites the ID’s, attributes, and elements contained in the various tables of a relational database and is therefore merely the recitation of the mental abstract idea of organizing data according to a designers opinion or judgement.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: No.
While the claim recites “An operation rule creating unit configured to create” the operational rule table, the specification indicates (par 37) that the operation rule creating unit is an electronic circuit such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit). Accordingly, this merely recites to execute the organization of data into a table use a computer. Merely executing an abstract idea with a computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While the claim recites that the database stores data related to a building, this merely links the use of the mental process of organizing data to the field of organizing building data. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
STEP 2B. No. The claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
While the claim recites “An operation rule creating unit configured to create the operation rule table by associating data in the completion database, the environment database, and the rule database”, Database_Schema_2003 indicates that link tables are common in relational database schemas. For example on page 50 a link Table example is provided that associates between two other tables. Also, Figure 3.1 illustrates a Link Table. Therefore, simply using a computer to organize data into a well-understood routine linking table is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim when viewed individually and as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2.
STEP 1. Yes. The claim recites: “a management method”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Yes. The claim recites:
“… By transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes, an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, an environment attributes, a rule database including a rule table storing, with resect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID to associate the completion member, the environment conditions, and the operation rule with each other,
(A1) selecting one record from the rule IDs in the rule database;
(B1) listing, by referring to the related member having the rule ID selected in the step (A1) from the object table, the completion member and/or the environment conditions corresponding to the related member attributes of the related member as a member list of the related member from the completion database and/or the environment database;
(C1) listing all of the corresponding completion members and/or environment conditions by repeating the step (B1); and
(D1) creating an operation rule table by bringing together the member list of the related members listed in the steps (B1) and (C1) with the rule ID selected in the step (A1) and the operation rule element based on the rule element of the rule ID selected in the step (A1) as on individual record, and storing the operation rule table in the operation database” which is a process of organizing data into an set of tables which is merely the mental process of organizing data according to a schema (i.e., underlying organizational pattern, conceptual framework, or plan).
Database_Schema_2003 (Chapter 3, Designing the GIS Database Schema 2/27/03 11:35 AM downloaded from: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/0471204889.c03.pdf) states:
Page 47: “… database designers use the word Schema to refer to the diagram and documents that lay out the structure of the database and the relationships that exist between elements of the database… designers spend a lot of time thinking about the schema… it is usually possible to design your database with paper and pencil… the ability to erase entire tables, delete relationships, add relationships, and so on, it is sometimes easier with pencil and paper or on a whiteboard than mastering a new set of tools…”.
Page 58: “… sketch out the detailed schema diagram. This is best done on a piece of paper where you can move tables around and erase mistakes easily…”
Therefore, the organization of data into a set of relational tables (i.e., a database), according to those of ordinary skill in the art, is the mental process of deciding how to organize data and is performed by a designer who may find it easy to use a pencil and paper or whiteboard to write down their schema for the various table reference IDs, attributes, and elements.
The claim recites the ID’s, attributes, and elements contained in the various tables of a relational database and is therefore merely the recitation of the mental abstract idea of organizing data according to a designers opinion or judgement.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
While the claim recites: “… By transmitting and receiving information to and from” a database this is mere data gathering and sending and receiving information to and from a database is well-understood and routine activities. MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that data gathering is not a practical application and that selecting particular data sources or types of data to be manipulated is not a practical application.
While the claim recites: “… and storing the operation rule table in the operation database” MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that storing data after manipulating data is insignificant extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B
Transmitting and receiving data from a database and storing data after manipulating data is not unconventional activity that would make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea of a schema for organizing data/information.
Claim 3
STEP 1. Yes. The claim recites: “a management system”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE. Yes. The claim recites:
“… comprising:
A completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes;
An environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, and environment attributes;
A rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attribute of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID to associate the completion member, the environment conditions, and the operation rule with each other;
An operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element; and
An operation rule operating unit configured to execute an inspection according to the operation rule by using the completion database, the environment database, and the operation rule table” which is a process of organizing data into an set of tables which is merely the mental process of organizing data according to a schema (i.e., underlying organizational pattern, conceptual framework, or plan).
Database_Schema_2003 (Chapter 3, Designing the GIS Database Schema 2/27/03 11:35 AM downloaded from: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/0471204889.c03.pdf) states:
Page 47: “… database designers use the word Schema to refer to the diagram and documents that lay out the structure of the database and the relationships that exist between elements of the database… designers spend a lot of time thinking about the schema… it is usually possible to design your database with paper and pencil… the ability to erase entire tables, delete relationships, add relationships, and so on, it is sometimes easier with pencil and paper or on a whiteboard than mastering a new set of tools…”.
Page 58: “… sketch out the detailed schema diagram. This is best done on a piece of paper where you can move tables around and erase mistakes easily…”
Therefore, the organization of data into a set of relational tables (i.e., a database), according to those of ordinary skill in the art, is the mental process of deciding how to organize data and is performed by a designer who may find it easy to use a pencil and paper or whiteboard to write down their schema for the various table reference IDs, attributes, and elements.
The claim recites the ID’s, attributes, and elements contained in the various tables of a relational database and is therefore merely the recitation of the mental abstract idea of organizing data according to a designers opinion or judgement.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: No.
While the claim recites “An operation rule creating unit configured to create” the operational rule table, the specification indicates (par 37) that the operation rule creating unit is an electronic circuit such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit). Accordingly, this merely recites to execute the organization of data into a table use a computer. Merely executing an abstract idea with a computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While the claim recites that the database stores data related to a building, this merely links the use of the mental process of organizing data to the field of organizing building data. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
STEP 2B. No. The claim does not recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
While the claim recites “An operation rule creating unit configured to create the operation rule table by associating data in the completion database, the environment database, and the rule database”, Database_Schema_2003 indicates that link tables are common in relational database schemas. For example on page 50 a link Table example is provided that associates between two other tables. Also, Figure 3.1 illustrates a Link Table. Therefore, simply using a computer to organize data into a well-understood routine linking table is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim when viewed individually and as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4
STEP 1
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
A management method comprising the steps of:
By transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes, and environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, an environment attribute, a rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member as the environment conditions related to the operation rule to associate the environment conditions and the operation rule is associated with each other, an operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element,
(A2) listing a specific record from the environment database;
(B2) extracting a record containing the related member related to the environment attribute of the record listed in the step (A2) from the operation rule table;
(C2) further extracting a record containing the related member paired win the member list in the record extracted in the step (B2);
(D2) repeating the extraction in the step (C2) as many times as the number of records extracted in the step (B2);
(E2) listing a record containing a work time +- N seconds from the work time listed in the step (A2) from the environment database;
(F2) extracting a record containing the same environment attributes as those extracted in the step (B2) from records listed in the step (E2);
(G2) calculating a distance between the environement acquisition coordinates in the step (A2) and the step (F2);
(H2) calculating a moving speed from a difference between working times listed in the step (A2) and the step (E2) and the distance calculated in the step (G2);
(I2) detecting whether the moving speed violates a condition described in the operation rule element in the operation rule table; and
(J2) executing an inspection by repeating the steps (E2) to (I2) as many times as the number of records extracted in the step (D2)” which is a process of organizing data into a set of tables which is merely the mental process of organizing data according to a schema (i.e., underlying organizational pattern, conceptual framework, or plan) and then using the organized data to perform mathematical calculations.
Database_Schema_2003 (Chapter 3, Designing the GIS Database Schema 2/27/03 11:35 AM downloaded from: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/0471204889.c03.pdf) states:
Page 47: “… database designers use the word Schema to refer to the diagram and documents that lay out the structure of the database and the relationships that exist between elements of the database… designers spend a lot of time thinking about the schema… it is usually possible to design your database with paper and pencil… the ability to erase entire tables, delete relationships, add relationships, and so on, it is sometimes easier with pencil and paper or on a whiteboard than mastering a new set of tools…”.
Page 58: “… sketch out the detailed schema diagram. This is best done on a piece of paper where you can move tables around and erase mistakes easily…”
Therefore, the organization of data into a set of relational tables (i.e., a database), according to those of ordinary skill in the art, is the mental process of deciding how to organize data and is performed by a designer who may find it easy to use a pencil and paper or whiteboard to write down their schema for the various table reference IDs, attributes, and elements.
The claim recites the ID’s, attributes, and elements contained in the various tables of a relational database and is therefore merely the recitation of the mental abstract idea of organizing data according to a designers opinion or judgement.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
While the claim recites: “… By transmitting and receiving information to and from” a database this is mere data gathering and sending and receiving information to and from a database is well-understood and routine activities. MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that data gathering is not a practical application and that selecting particular data sources or types of data to be manipulated is not a practical application.
STEP 2B
Transmitting and receiving data from a database and storing data after manipulating data is not unconventional activity that would make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea of a schema for organizing data/information.
CLAIM 5
STEP 1. Yes. The claim recites: “a management method”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE. Yes. The claim recites:
“… comprising the steps of:
By transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes, an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion of an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, an environment attributes, a rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID to associate the completion member, the environement conditions, and the operation rule with each other, an operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element,
(A2) listing a specific record from the environment database;
(B2) extracting a record containing the related member related to the environment attributes of the record listed in step (A2) from the operation rule table;
(C2) extracting, when the record listed in the step (A2) includes a record in which the environment acquisition coordinates of the record do not satisfy a condition described in the operation rule element in the operation rule table extracted in the step (B2), the record as a corresponding record;
(D2) extracting an inspection by repeating the steps (B2) to (C2) as many times as the number of records listed in the step (A2), and
(E2) detecting the corresponding record detected through the steps (C2) and (D2) as violation” which is a process of organizing data into a set of tables which is merely the mental process of organizing data according to a schema (i.e., underlying organizational pattern, conceptual framework, or plan) and then further making an opinion or judgement about the organized data.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
While the claim recites “by transmitting and receiving information to and from” a database/tables, and while the claim recites to extract records from a database for use in making an opinion or judgement about the data (i.e., judge a violation), MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is not indicative of a practical application.
STEP 2B
While the claim recites “by transmitting and receiving information to and from” a database/tables, and while the claim recites to extract records from a database for use in making an opinion or judgement about the data (i.e., judge a violation), data is not unconventional activity that would make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea of a schema for organizing data/information. It is common to query a database to extract records from tables.
Claim 23 is substantially the same as claim 2 and is found to be directed to an abstract idea due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.
Claim 24 is substantially the same as claim 4 and is found to be directed to an abstract idea due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 25 is substantially the same as claim 5 and is found to be directed to an abstract idea due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 6 recites: “The management system according to claim 1, further comprising:
An operation plan creating unit for creating one operation plan by using a selected plurality of the operation rules, wherein
The operation plan creating unit creates the operation rule table with respect to the rule ID of each of the selected operation rules by using the operation rule creating unit, and
In the operation database, creates an operation plan table storing a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID selected for the operation plan , plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule related to the rule ID has been executed, and confirmation data and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed” which merely further recites the mental process of organizing information. While the claim recites that the data is stored in a table merely storing/organizing data in a table after the mental process of deciding how to organize related data is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates that, for example, printing data (e.g., menus) is insignificant application and is therefore not a practical application. Printing a menu is analogous to storing/writing/printing information into a table after deciding how to organize information into tables because the menu is printed after deciding how to organize the menu items (e.g., data/information). Further a menu is often organized into rows and columns which is a table.
Accordingly, it is found that the claim does not recite a practical application nor does it recite significantly more.
Claim 7 recites: “The management method according to claim 2, further comprising the steps of:
For creating one operation plan by using a selected plurality of the operation rules,
(A3) selecting one record from the rule IDs in the rule database;
(B3) creating, with respect to the rule ID selected in the step (A3), the operation rule table of the rule ID by performing the steps (A1) to D1);
(C3) creating a collection of the operation rules by the rule IDs necessary for the operation plan by repeating the steps (A3) to (B3); and
(D3) creating an operation plan table by bringing together, with respect to the step (C3), a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed, as one individual record, and storing the operation plan table in the operation database” which recites elements that merely further organize data according to a schema. While the claim recites creating an operation plan table by brining together various data, the creating of a table and storing the table in a database is insufficient application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates that, for example, printing data (e.g., menus) is insignificant application and is therefore not a practical application. Printing a menu is analogous to storing/writing/printing information into a table after deciding how to organize information into tables because the menu is printed after deciding how to organize the menu items (e.g., data/information). Further a menu is often organized into rows and columns which is a table.
Claim 8 recites: “The management system according to claim 3, further comprising:
An operation plan table and an operation plan operating unit for inspecting an operation plan including a plurality of the operation rules, wherein
The operation plan table
Stores a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID of the operation rule selected for the operation plan, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed, and is stored in the operation database, and
The operation plan operating unit lists a record which has become an inspection date based
On information on inspection frequency stored in the rule database from the environment database, and
Executes an inspection according to the operation rule of the record which as become the inspection data by using the operation rule operating unit, and with respect to a record in which no violation has been detected, updates the plan attributes in the operation plan table to “inspected” and stores the confirmation date and time” however, these elements merely recite the further mental process of “inspecting” a table which is the mental process of making a judgement or opinion about organized data.
Claim 9 recites: “The management method according to claim 4, further comprising the steps of:
For inspecting an operation plan including a plurality of the operation rules,
By transmitting and receiving information to and from the operation database configured to store and operation plan table storing a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID selected for the operation plan, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed,
(A4) listing a record in which the work time has become an inspection date from the environment database by comparing to inspection frequency stored in the rule database;
(B4) detecting violation by performing the steps (A2) to (I2) for a record listed in the step (A4); and
(C4) updating the plan attributes in the operation plan table with respect to a record in which no violation has been detected in the step (B4) to “inspected” and storing the date and time of the inspection in the step (B4) as the confirmation date and time” which recites to make further mental judgements or opinions (i.e., inspection) of organized data. While the claim elements recite that the inspection is performed by “transmitting and receiving information” this is mere data gathering and sending and receiving information to and from a database is well-understood and routine activities. MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that data gathering is not a practical application and that selecting particular data sources or types of data to be manipulated is not a practical application.
Claim 10 recites: “The management method according to claim 5. Further comprising the steps of:
For inspecting an operation plan including a plurality of the operation rules,
By transmitting and receiving information to and from the operation database configured to store an operation plan table storing a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID selected for the operation plan, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed,
(A4) listing a record in which the work time has become an inspection date from the environment database by comparing to inspection frequency stored in the rule database;
(B4) detecting violation by performing the steps (A2) to (I2) for a record listed in the step (A4); and
(C4) updating the plan attributes in the operation plan table with respect to a record in which no violation has been detected in the step (B4) to “inspected” and storing the date and time of the inspection in the step (B4) as the confirmation date and time” which recites to make further mental judgements or opinions (i.e., inspection) of organized data. While the claim elements recite that the inspection is performed by “transmitting and receiving information” this is mere data gathering and sending and receiving information to and from a database is well-understood and routine activities. MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that data gathering is not a practical application and that selecting particular data sources or types of data to be manipulated is not a practical application.
Claim 11 recites: “The management system according to claim 3, further comprising:
A notification management ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address of the to-be-notified person, wherein
With respect to the operation rule where violation has been detected in the inspection, based on the rule ID, by referring to the notification management database, an alert is transmitted to the to-be-notified person” which merely recites to sent a notification when the mental process of making a judgement or opinion about the data makes the judgement that the data is determined to have a violation. Performing an act, such as sending a notification, after making a decision is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates that performing the act of cutting hair after making a decision about hair style is insignificant application.
Claim 12 recites: “The management method according to claim 4, further comprising the steps of:
By transmitting and receiving information storing the rule ID, a to-be-notified person ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address to the to-be-notified person,
Transmitting an alert to the to-be-notified person by referring to the notification management database based on the rule ID with respect to the operation rule where the violation has been detected after the step of detecting the violation” which merely recites to sent a notification when the mental process of making a judgement or opinion about the data makes the judgement that the data is determined to have a violation. Performing an act, such as sending a notification, after making a decision is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates that performing the act of cutting hair after making a decision about hair style is insignificant application.
Claim 13 recites: “the management method according to claim 5, further comprising the step of:
By transmitting and receiving information to and from a notification management database storing the rule ID, a to-be-notified person ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address of the to-be-notified person,
Transmitting an alert to the to-be-notified person by referring to the notification management database based on the rule ID with respect to the operation rule where the violation has been detected after the step of detecting the violation” which merely recites to sent a notification when the mental process of making a judgement or opinion about the data makes the judgement that the data is determined to have a violation. Performing an act, such as sending a notification, after making a decision is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates that performing the act of cutting hair after making a decision about hair style is insignificant application.
Claim 14 recites: “The management method according to claim 1, wherein in the environment database, a record containing the work time from which a certain period of time has elapsed is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database” which is merely routine data manipulation/movement/storage of information which is generic computer activities. Such elements are not a practical application nor are they significantly more because, for example, they do not recite any unconventional storage or data movement activities.
Claim 15 recites: “The management method of claim 1, wherein in the environment database, a record containing the work time form which a certain period of time has elapsed is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database” which is merely routine data manipulation/movement/storage of information which is generic computer activities. Such elements are not a practical application nor are they significantly more because, for example, they do not recite any unconventional storage or data movement activities.
Claim 16 recites: “the management system according to claim 1, wherein data in the environment database are divided into a first table containing the environment acquisition result ID, a coordinate point ID, and the environment acquisition coordinates, and a second table containing the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment attributes, and a reference destination, the first table is transferred to a storage different from a storage device of the environment database, and information on the different storage device is registered in the reference destination in the second table, and is read out from the reference destination as needed” which is simply further articulating the data schema which the mental process of deciding data organization. Further, reading out data from a storage location as needed in insufficient application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 17 recites: “the management system according to claim 3, wherein data in the environment database are divided into a first table containing the environment acquisition result ID, a coordinate point ID, and the environment acquisition coordinates, and a second table containing the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment attributes, and a reference destination, the first table is transferred to a storage different from a storage device of the environment database, and information on the different storage device is registered in the reference destination in the second table, and is read out from the reference destination as needed” which is simply further articulating the data schema which the mental process of deciding data organization. Further, reading out data from a storage location as needed in insufficient application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 18 recites: “the management system according to claim 1, wherein the operation rule creating unit outputs a record crated in the operation rule table as a report on request from a manager” which is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates printing or downloading generated menus is not a practical application nor is it significantly more.
Claim 19 recites: “the management system according to claim 3, wherein the operation rule operating unit outputs a record which has been inspected for violation based on the operation rule table as a report on request from a manager” which is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates printing or downloading generated menus is not a practical application nor is it significantly more.
Claim 20 recites: “the management system according to claim 6, wherein the operation plan creating unit outputs a record created in the operation plan table as a report on request from a manger” which is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates printing or downloading generated menus is not a practical application nor is it significantly more.
Claim 21 recites: “the management system according to claim 8, wherein the operation rule operating unit outputs a record which has been inspected for violation based on the operation plan table as a report on request from a manager” which is insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which indicates printing or downloading generated menus is not a practical application nor is it significantly more.
Claim 22 Recites: “the management system according to claim 1, wherein the completion database stores member characteristics of the completion member,
The environment database stores environment characteristics of the environment conditions,
The rule database stores related member characteristics of the related member, and
The operation rule creating unit creates the member list of the operation rule table from member characteristics” which mere further defines the database schema which is the mental process of deciding how data is organized.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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.
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: “unit” in claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 23, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 (A Simplified BIM Data Representation using a Relational Database Schema for an Efficient Rule Checking System and its Associated Rule Checking, May 2016, Georgia Institute of Technology) in view of Solihin_2017 (A simplified relational database schema for transformation of BIM data into a query-efficient and spatially enabled database, Automation in Construction 84, 2017) In view of Solihin_2020 (Simplified schema queries for supporting BIM-based rule-checking application, Automation in Constructions 117, 2020) In view of Andayesh_2014 (The Time dimension in site layout planning, Automation in Construction 44, 2014).
Claim 1. Solihin_2016 makes obvious “A
A completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes;
An environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID,
A rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member related to the rule ID to associate the completion member, the environment conditions, and the operation rule with each other;
An operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element; and
An operation rule
Solihin_2016 does not teach facilities/building “management” system nor “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time” nor a “creating unit.”
of Solihin_2017, however, makes obvious a facilities/building “management” system (page 369: “… rule checking, analysis, and even for facility management purposes… the database schema is named BIMRL that reflects our research on rule checking systems for BIM rules…”; page 391: “… the proposed approach has wide-range of potential uses, especially for rules-checking applications… it also has potential in facilities management, and data for real-time optimization of building operations…”)
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a relational database schema for BIM rule checking and Solihin_2017 teaches that the relational database schema for BIM rule checking has “a wide-range of potential uses, especially for rules-checking applications” including use “in facilities management” and “for real-time optimization of building operations” (page 391). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 for the benefit of facilities management to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 does not teach “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time” nor a “creating unit.”
Solihin_2020 makes obvious a “creating unit” (page 15: “… the concept of BIMRLS has been implemented using the Oracle database with Spatial Data Object and recently with PostgreSQL… on Windows laptop with i7-7700HGQ 4 core CPU, 32 GB RAM, and uses PostgresSQL, 10.6, using the optimized BIMRLSS codes… the basic software code have been made open source since June 2017 with LGPLv3 (Lesser GNU Public License) open source license…” EXAMINER NOTE: a “creating unit” is interpreted according to the specification paragraph 31 as Central Processing Unit (CPU)).
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 teach to implement a BIM relational database for rule checking and Solihin_2020 teaches to use a computing unit (CPU) executing software to create the database and its tables and also to execute rule checking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 for the benefit of having a computer upon which to employ a BIM database with tables that is used for rule checking while managing facilities to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 do not teach “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time”
Andayesh_2014, however, makes obvious “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time”
(page 130: “… the optimum location of each object is searched… The time–space requirement of a project can be determined as follows: Time–Space Requirement = ΣAi _ Ti where Ai is the footprint area for object i, and Ti is the duration that object i exists on the site…”; page 131: “… objects compete over the prime locations during each time interval… the actual duration that objects occupy space on the site is considered for the optimization… in reality, objects enter and leave the construction site at different points of time in the project, and assigning space to them for longer durations than they are on the site will reduce the efficiency of the final layout…”; Fig. 4)
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called facilities/building management systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2017 teaches to use a BIM database for “rules checking, analysis, and even for facilities management purposes (page 369) and also “for real-time optimization of building operations” (page 382). Further, Solihin_2016 teaches that rule-checking includes “clash detection”. Andayesh_2014 teaches to optimize the location of objecting during building operations and to do so by taking into consideration workstation object footprint/location coordinates and duration of time the workstation is required. Andayesh_2014 teaches to perform optimization that avoid clash of workstation location and work time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014 for the benefit of optimizing location and operation of facilities by performing rules checking such as clash checks to ensure that workstation placement does not clash to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2. Solihin_2016 makes obvious A
By transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes, an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID
(A1) selecting one record from the rule IDs in the rule database;
(B1) listing, by referring to the related member having the rule ID selected in the step (A1) from the object table, the completion member and/or the environment conditions corresponding to the related member attributes of the related member as a member list of the related member from the completion database and/or the environment database;
(C1) listing all of the corresponding completion members and/or environment conditions by repeating the step (B1); and
(D1) creating an operation rule table by bringing together the member list of the related members listed in the steps (B1) and (C1) with the rule ID selected in the step (A1) and the operation rule element based on the rule element of the rule ID selected in the step (A1) as on individual record, and storing the operation rule table in the operation database.
(page xxix: “… BIMRL makes use of the query-able BIM data in the database… check – evaluate – action… it is built on top of an SQL interface…”; Fig. 40, 41, 42, 43: BIMRL Schema; page 95 section 5.2 a data warehouse like schema for the BIM data… BIM data possesses many characteristics of a data warehouse… for rule checking, analysis, and even for facility management purposes…” page 96: “a central fact table can be identified for the BIM data. IT is simply called a BIM element or BIM (BIMRL_ELEMENT). Generally it captures the building object… attributes… of these objects, if not all, are aggregated into the fact table…”; Page 102 Fig 46 section 5.2.3.4: “… BIMRL_ELEMENT… foreign key…” page 105: “… id as a key identifier to find the relevant table in the database…”; Page 111: section 5.5 validation tests: “… approach for this query-able BIM are easy and efficient queries, ability to expose BIM data for ad-hock queries and analysis… query the BIM with standard SQL…”; page 124 Figure 49: “link table”; page 185: “… a location represented (centroid) of the second object…”)
Solihin_2016 does not teach facilities/building “management” system nor “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time” nor a “creating unit.”
of Solihin_2017, however, makes obvious a facilities/building “management” system (page 369: “… rule checking, analysis, and even for facility management purposes… the database schema is named BIMRL that reflects our research on rule checking systems for BIM rules…”; page 391: “… the proposed approach has wide-range of potential uses, especially for rules-checking applications… it also has potential in facilities management, and data for real-time optimization of building operations…”)
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a relational database schema for BIM rule checking and Solihin_2017 teaches that the relational database schema for BIM rule checking has “a wide-range of potential uses, especially for rules-checking applications” including use “in facilities management” and “for real-time optimization of building operations” (page 391). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 for the benefit of facilities management to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 does not teach “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time” nor a “creating unit.”
Solihin_2020 makes obvious a “creating unit” (page 15: “… the concept of BIMRLS has been implemented using the Oracle database with Spatial Data Object and recently with PostgreSQL… on Windows laptop with i7-7700HGQ 4 core CPU, 32 GB RAM, and uses PostgresSQL, 10.6, using the optimized BIMRLSS codes… the basic software code have been made open source since June 2017 with LGPLv3 (Lesser GNU Public License) open source license…” EXAMINER NOTE: a “creating unit” is interpreted according to the specification paragraph 31 as Central Processing Unit (CPU)).
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 teach to implement a BIM relational database for rule checking and Solihin_2020 teaches to use a computing unit (CPU) executing software to create the database and its tables and also to execute rule checking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 for the benefit of having a computer upon which to employ a BIM database with tables that is used for rule checking while managing facilities to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Solihin_2020 do not teach “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time”
Andayesh_2014, however, makes obvious “environment acquisition coordinates, a work time”
(page 130: “… the optimum location of each object is searched… The time–space requirement of a project can be determined as follows: Time–Space Requirement = ΣAi _ Ti where Ai is the footprint area for object i, and Ti is the duration that object i exists on the site…”; page 131: “… objects compete over the prime locations during each time interval… the actual duration that objects occupy space on the site is considered for the optimization… in reality, objects enter and leave the construction site at different points of time in the project, and assigning space to them for longer durations than they are on the site will reduce the efficiency of the final layout…”; Fig. 4)
Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called facilities/building management systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2017 teaches to use a BIM database for “rules checking, analysis, and even for facilities management purposes (page 369) and also “for real-time optimization of building operations” (page 382). Further, Solihin_2016 teaches that rule-checking includes “clash detection”. Andayesh_2014 teaches to optimize the location of objecting during building operations and to do so by taking into consideration workstation object footprint/location coordinates and duration of time the workstation is required. Andayesh_2014 teaches to perform optimization that avoid clash of workstation location and work time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Solihin_2017 and Andayesh_2014 for the benefit of optimizing location and operation of facilities by performing rules checking such as clash checks to ensure that workstation placement does not clash to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 23. The limitations of claim 23 are substantially the same as those of claim 2 and are rejected due to the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 3. The limitations of claim 3 are the same as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 18. Solihin_2016 makes obvious “wherein the operation rule creating unit outputs a record created in the operation rule table as a report on request from a manager” ( Page 122: “… queries to the BIM data are using this schema, simple measurements are dong using Oracle SQL Developer UI to perform the queries interactively…”
Page 186: The report is an essential part of any rule checking; page 205: “… extension function is responsible to collect the analysis results and process it into a table in BIMRL that can be used to create report…”; page 222: “… the intersection results reported in the variable clash (output column)… once can analyze the building design and its responses to this rule check. The X3D report offers an interactive and visual insight into the building model and the rule checking…”; page 248: “… report generated from the rule…”; page 269 “reporting back to interested parties”).
Claim 19. Solihin_2016 makes obvious “wherein the operation rule operating unit outputs a record which has been inspected for violation based on the operation rule table as a report on request from a manager” ( Page 122: “… queries to the BIM data are using this schema, simple measurements are dong using Oracle SQL Developer UI to perform the queries interactively…”
Page 186: The report is an essential part of any rule checking; page 205: “… extension function is responsible to collect the analysis results and process it into a table in BIMRL that can be used to create report…”; page 222: “… the intersection results reported in the variable clash (output column)… once can analyze the building design and its responses to this rule check. The X3D report offers an interactive and visual insight into the building model and the rule checking…”; page 248: “… report generated from the rule…”; page 269 “reporting back to interested parties”).
Claims 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Matsubara_2005 (US 2005/0096797 A1).
Claim 6. Matsubara_2005 makes obvious “further comprising:
An operation plan creating unit for creating one operation plan by using a selected plurality of the operation rules, wherein
The operation plan creating unit creates the operation rule table with respect to the rule ID of each of the selected operation rules by using the operation rule creating unit, and
In the operation database, creates an operation plan table storing a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID selected for the operation plan , plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule related to the rule ID has been executed, and confirmation data and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed. ([0034] The sixth one is an energy saving control database associated with a routine of generating an operational plan. It includes an ID of routine for generating an operational plan, a name of routine for generating an operational plan (call address), a classification of input data, a classification of output data, a prioritized rank for processing and information about effect on amenity. The classification of input data selects information to be used in the routine for generating an operational plan from that stored in the facility database or the receiving information database. The classification of output data indicates a correlation between an output from the routine for generating an operational plan and control information sent to the BA server 102, accessing to the sending information database
[0095] The remote control server 150 has a plurality of routines for generating an operational plan. A routine for generating an operational plan adapts control, which is applied to a unit, so that the unit is controlled so as to save energy compared with a normal operation. Each routine has an ID. If input and output is common for two or more buildings, a routine can be shared among these buildings. There is a routine which is able to generate a plurality of operational plans, such as a routine for reduction in wasteful energy consumption to be described later.
[0098] Selection for applicable routines for a building results in selection of routines, which provide control required by facilities belonging to the building, from a group of routines for generating an operational plan. The remote control sever 150 obtains a routine for generating an operational plan to be processed in the following sequence: the remote control server 150 selects an ID for the routine for generating an operational plan for a facility of the building from the building database 710, retrieving a name (call address) for the routine for generating an operational plan correlated with the ID in an energy saving control database 740. When a common routine is applied to two or more facilities of the building, it is necessary to retrieve so as not to repeat the process, because it is enough to execute the routine only once.)
Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called building management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a database and rule checking to perform facilities management and Matsubara_2005 teaches a to create an operation plan from database tables including a table that provides rules for saving energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005for the benefit of saving energy when managing a facility to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7. Matsubara_2005 makes obvious “further comprising the steps of:
For creating one operation plan by using a selected plurality of the operation rules,
(A3) selecting one record from the rule IDs in the rule database;
(B3) creating, with respect to the rule ID selected in the step (A3), the operation rule table of the rule ID by performing the steps (A1) to D1);
(C3) creating a collection of the operation rules by the rule IDs necessary for the operation plan by repeating the steps (A3) to (B3); and
(D3) creating an operation plan table by bringing together, with respect to the step (C3), a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed, as one individual record, and storing the operation plan table in the operation database” ([0034] The sixth one is an energy saving control database associated with a routine of generating an operational plan. It includes an ID of routine for generating an operational plan, a name of routine for generating an operational plan (call address), a classification of input data, a classification of output data, a prioritized rank for processing and information about effect on amenity. The classification of input data selects information to be used in the routine for generating an operational plan from that stored in the facility database or the receiving information database. The classification of output data indicates a correlation between an output from the routine for generating an operational plan and control information sent to the BA server 102, accessing to the sending information database
[0095] The remote control server 150 has a plurality of routines for generating an operational plan. A routine for generating an operational plan adapts control, which is applied to a unit, so that the unit is controlled so as to save energy compared with a normal operation. Each routine has an ID. If input and output is common for two or more buildings, a routine can be shared among these buildings. There is a routine which is able to generate a plurality of operational plans, such as a routine for reduction in wasteful energy consumption to be described later.
[0098] Selection for applicable routines for a building results in selection of routines, which provide control required by facilities belonging to the building, from a group of routines for generating an operational plan. The remote control sever 150 obtains a routine for generating an operational plan to be processed in the following sequence: the remote control server 150 selects an ID for the routine for generating an operational plan for a facility of the building from the building database 710, retrieving a name (call address) for the routine for generating an operational plan correlated with the ID in an energy saving control database 740. When a common routine is applied to two or more facilities of the building, it is necessary to retrieve so as not to repeat the process, because it is enough to execute the routine only once.)
Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called building management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a database and rule checking to perform facilities management and Matsubara_2005 teaches a to create an operation plan from database tables including a table that provides rules for saving energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005for the benefit of saving energy when managing a facility to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8. Matsubara_2005 makes obvious further comprising:
An operation plan table and an operation plan operating unit for inspecting an operation plan including a plurality of the operation rules, wherein
The operation plan table Stores a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID of the operation rule selected for the operation plan, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed, and is stored in the operation database, and
The operation plan operating unit lists a record which has become an inspection date based
On information on inspection frequency stored in the rule database from the environment database, and
Executes an inspection according to the operation rule of the record which as become the inspection data by using the operation rule operating unit, and with respect to a record in which no violation has been detected, updates the plan attributes in the operation plan table to “inspected” and stores the confirmation date and time” ([0034] The sixth one is an energy saving control database associated with a routine of generating an operational plan. It includes an ID of routine for generating an operational plan, a name of routine for generating an operational plan (call address), a classification of input data, a classification of output data, a prioritized rank for processing and information about effect on amenity. The classification of input data selects information to be used in the routine for generating an operational plan from that stored in the facility database or the receiving information database. The classification of output data indicates a correlation between an output from the routine for generating an operational plan and control information sent to the BA server 102, accessing to the sending information database
[0095] The remote control server 150 has a plurality of routines for generating an operational plan. A routine for generating an operational plan adapts control, which is applied to a unit, so that the unit is controlled so as to save energy compared with a normal operation. Each routine has an ID. If input and output is common for two or more buildings, a routine can be shared among these buildings. There is a routine which is able to generate a plurality of operational plans, such as a routine for reduction in wasteful energy consumption to be described later.
[0098] Selection for applicable routines for a building results in selection of routines, which provide control required by facilities belonging to the building, from a group of routines for generating an operational plan. The remote control sever 150 obtains a routine for generating an operational plan to be processed in the following sequence: the remote control server 150 selects an ID for the routine for generating an operational plan for a facility of the building from the building database 710, retrieving a name (call address) for the routine for generating an operational plan correlated with the ID in an energy saving control database 740. When a common routine is applied to two or more facilities of the building, it is necessary to retrieve so as not to repeat the process, because it is enough to execute the routine only once.)
Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called building management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a database and rule checking to perform facilities management and Matsubara_2005 teaches a to create an operation plan from database tables including a table that provides rules for saving energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005for the benefit of saving energy when managing a facility to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Matsubara_2005 in view of Kwak_2020 (KR 102130006 B1).
Claim 20. Kwak_2020 makes obvious “wherein the operation plan creating unit outputs a record created in the operation plan table as a report on request from a manager” (page 20:
In addition, if the daily progress report for each session does not meet the previously set basic rules, the server 200 transmits a supplementary request (or modification request) for the daily progress report
As described above, the server 200 checks whether the operation plan, the change plan, the daily progress report for each session, etc., meets the preset basic rules, and confirms the plan (for example, the operation plan, change) If the plan or progress report) or the progress report meets the above basic regulations, the plan or progress report can be set to approval status.
In addition, if the corresponding plan or progress report does not meet the basic rule as a result of the check, the server 200 sets the basic rule to the rejected state (or pending state) of the corresponding plan or progress report, and is returned as described above. If there is a plan or progress report set to a state, it may be configured not to receive a result report from the instructor…”).
Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking and Kwak_2020 teaches to provide a progress report if an item does not meet the previously set basic rules (i.e., fails rule checking). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 for the benefit of knowing when rule checking fails to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 21. Kwak_2020 makes obvious “wherein the operation rule operating unit outputs a record which has been inspected for violation based on the operation plan table as a report on request from a manager” (page 20: As described above, the server 200 checks whether the operation plan, the change plan, the daily progress report for each session, etc., meets the preset basic rules, and confirms the plan (for example, the operation plan, change) If the plan or progress report) or the progress report meets the above basic regulations, the plan or progress report can be set to approval status.
In addition, if the corresponding plan or progress report does not meet the basic rule as a result of the check, the server 200 sets the basic rule to the rejected state (or pending state) of the corresponding plan or progress report, and is returned as described above. If there is a plan or progress report set to a state, it may be configured not to receive a result report from the instructor…”).
Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking and Kwak_2020 teaches to provide a progress report if an item does not meet the previously set basic rules (i.e., fails rule checking). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 for the benefit of knowing when rule checking fails to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Kwak_2020
Claim 22. Kwak_2020 makes obvious “wherein the operation rule operating unit outputs a record which has been inspected for violation based on the operation plan table as a report on request from a manager” (page 20:
In addition, if the daily progress report for each session does not meet the previously set basic rules, the server 200 transmits a supplementary request (or modification request) for the daily progress report
As described above, the server 200 checks whether the operation plan, the change plan, the daily progress report for each session, etc., meets the preset basic rules, and confirms the plan (for example, the operation plan, change) If the plan or progress report) or the progress report meets the above basic regulations, the plan or progress report can be set to approval status.
In addition, if the corresponding plan or progress report does not meet the basic rule as a result of the check, the server 200 sets the basic rule to the rejected state (or pending state) of the corresponding plan or progress report, and is returned as described above. If there is a plan or progress report set to a state, it may be configured not to receive a result report from the instructor…”).
Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking and Kwak_2020 teaches to provide a progress report if an item does not meet the previously set basic rules (i.e., fails rule checking). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Kwak_2020 for the benefit of knowing when rule checking fails to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Wei_2020 (CN111127278 A).
Claim 11. Solhin_2016 teaches to perform rules checking and to provide rule check reports (page 186: “the report is an essential part of any rule checking… a visual report will be very helpful to assist the user…”; page 252: “… the intersection results report…” page 299: “… reporting back to interested parties the results of the rule checking…”). Shlihin_2016 does not, however, teaches “… further comprising:
A notification management ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address of the to-be-notified person, wherein
With respect to the operation rule where violation has been detected in the inspection, based on the rule ID, by referring to the notification management database, an alert is transmitted to the to-be-notified person”
Wei_2020, however, makes obvious “… further comprising:
A notification management ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address of the to-be-notified person, wherein
With respect to the operation rule where violation has been detected in the inspection, based on the rule ID, by referring to the notification management database, an alert is transmitted to the to-be-notified person” (Page 10: target validation rule is stored in the checking rule set to be check data. wherein the check having a check rule in the rule set aiming at the to-be-checking data for checking. aiming at the different to-be-check data, can be provided with different check rule, and the checking rule pre-stored in the predetermined checking rule in the set. when needing to check data for checking, in the checking rule set to the extracted and matched the target check the rule check data. wherein the design check rule can respectively with a rule check table, the rule classification table, verifying informing the person list, check result track list and check result notification record table)
Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking and to provide reports to interested parties. Wei_2020 teaches to perform rules checking and also to have an “informing the person list” and “check result notification table”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020 for the benefit of having a list/table of interested persons that can be informed.to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Peters_2013 (US 8,601307 B2).
Claim 14. Peters_2013 makes obvious “wherein in the environment database, a record containing the work time from which a certain period of time has elapsed is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database” ( COL 31: further comprising performing a relocation operation to relocate particular data, particular instructions, or a combination thereof, stored at a particular shared storage system of the virtual shared storage system to another shared storage system of the virtual shared storage system, wherein the particular shared storage system is located at a first location, wherein the other shared storage system is located at a second location that is remote from the first location, and wherein the relocation operation is initiated in response to a determination that a first demand for access to the particular data, the particular instructions, or the combination thereof, at the first location is less than a second demand for access to the particular data, the particular instructions, or the combination thereof, at the second location)
Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called data storage.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to store data and Peters_2013 teaches that particular data can be more and stored at a different location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013 for the benefit of moving data and storing it somewhere else to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 15. Peters_2013 makes obvious “wherein in the environment database, a record containing the work time from which a certain period of time has elapsed is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database” ( COL 31: further comprising performing a relocation operation to relocate particular data, particular instructions, or a combination thereof, stored at a particular shared storage system of the virtual shared storage system to another shared storage system of the virtual shared storage system, wherein the particular shared storage system is located at a first location, wherein the other shared storage system is located at a second location that is remote from the first location, and wherein the relocation operation is initiated in response to a determination that a first demand for access to the particular data, the particular instructions, or the combination thereof, at the first location is less than a second demand for access to the particular data, the particular instructions, or the combination thereof, at the second location)
Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called data storage.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to store data and Peters_2013 teaches that particular data can be more and stored at a different location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Peters_2013 for the benefit of moving data and storing it somewhere else to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Solihin_2017 In view of Solihin_2020 In view of Andayesh_2014 in view of Toebes_2006 (US 2006/0206621 A1).
Claim 16. Toebes_2006 makes obvious “wherein data in the environment database are divided into a first table containing the environement acquisition result ID, a coordinate point ID, and the environement acquisition coordinates, and a second table containing the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment attributes, and a reference destination, the first table is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database, and information on the different storage device is registered in the reference destination in the second table, and is read out from the reference destination as needed” ( [0007] Another technique of splitting contents of databases, particularly relevant to relational databases, involves dividing tables and then distributing the tables as divided across different machines based on content. For example, if a database has a number of records that exceeds the capacity for a single storage device, or if the received database queries exceed the capacity of a single database server machine, the database tables may be split among multiple database server machines, where the first machine has tables associated with a first attribute (e.g., employee identifier attributes), and the second machine has tables associated with a second attribute (e.g., salary information). One of the columns will specify which storage device stores the associated data from that table, enabling a machine executing a database server to locate the data associated with the record. Hence, a SQL query can be sent to multiple machines in order to reconstruct the requested data according to the SQL query. In addition, two tables can be created separately, and then joined at runtime in response to a SQL query.)
Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called databases. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006. The rationale for doing so would have been Solihin_2016 teaches to store data in a database and Toebes_2006 teaches that if the database is too large for local memory to split the database tables and store them in separate locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006 for the benefit of storing large database tables to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 17. Toebes_2006 makes obvious “wherein data in the environment database are divided into a first table containing the environment acquisition result ID, a coordinate point ID, and the environment acquisition coordinates, and a second table containing the environment acquisition result ID, the work time, the environment attributes, and a reference destination, the first table is transferred to a storage device different from a storage device of the environment database, and information on the different storage device is registered in the reference destination in the second table, and is read out from the reference destination as needed” ( [0007] Another technique of splitting contents of databases, particularly relevant to relational databases, involves dividing tables and then distributing the tables as divided across different machines based on content. For example, if a database has a number of records that exceeds the capacity for a single storage device, or if the received database queries exceed the capacity of a single database server machine, the database tables may be split among multiple database server machines, where the first machine has tables associated with a first attribute (e.g., employee identifier attributes), and the second machine has tables associated with a second attribute (e.g., salary information). One of the columns will specify which storage device stores the associated data from that table, enabling a machine executing a database server to locate the data associated with the record. Hence, a SQL query can be sent to multiple machines in order to reconstruct the requested data according to the SQL query. In addition, two tables can be created separately, and then joined at runtime in response to a SQL query.)
Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called databases. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006. The rationale for doing so would have been Solihin_2016 teaches to store data in a database and Toebes_2006 teaches that if the database is too large for local memory to split the database tables and store them in separate locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Toebes_2006 for the benefit of storing large database tables to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 4, 24, 5, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Hadon_1998 (CN 1175035A).
Claim 4. Solihin_2016 makes obvious “A management method comprising the steps of:
by transmitting and receiving information to and from a completion database storing, with respect to a completion member of a building to be managed, at least a member ID, member coordinates, and member attributes,
an environment database storing, with respect to environment conditions of the building including the completion member after completion or an object related to the completion member, at least an environment acquisition result ID, environment acquisition coordinates, a work time, and environment attributes,
a rule database including a rule table storing, with respect to an operation rule of the building, at least a rule ID of the operation rule, rule attributes of the operation rule, and a rule element of the operation rule, and an object table storing at least the rule ID and related member attributes of a related member as the environment conditions related to the operation rule to associate the environment conditions and the operation rule with each other,
an operation database including an operation rule table storing the rule ID, a member list of the related member, and an operation rule element based on the rule element,
(A2) listing a specific record from the environment database;
(B2) extracting a record containing the related member related to the environment attributes of the record listed in the step (A2) from the operation rule table;
(C2) further extracting a record containing the related member paired in the member list in the record extracted in the step (B2);
(D2) repeating the extraction in the step (C2) as many times as the number of records extracted in the step (B2);
(F2) extracting a record containing the same environment attributes as those extracted in the step (B2) from records listed in the step (E2);
(
(J2) executing an inspection by repeating the steps (E2) to (I2) as many times as the number of records extracted in the step (D2)” (Page 52 Table 3: examples of rules: Class 2 checks – construction coordination “clash detection”; Chapter 5: Query-able BIM and it Schema; Page 90 – 91: “… database management system, a similar concept has bee for may years, known as a data warehouse… BIM data is transformed into a database schema that is intuitive and efficient to be queried…”; Fig. 40, 41, 42, 43: BIMRL Schema; page 95 section 5.2 a data warehouse like schema for the BIM data… BIM data possesses many characteristics of a data warehouse… for rule checking, analysis, and even for facility management purposes…” page 96: “a central fact table can be identified for the BIM data. IT is simply called a DIM element or BIM (BIMRL_ELEMENT). Generally it captures the building object… attributes… of these objects, if not all, are aggregated into the fact table…”; Page 102 Fig 46 section 5.2.3.4: “… BIMRL_ELEMENT… foreign key…” page 105: “… id as a key identifier to find the relevant table in the database…”; Page 111: section 5.5 validation tests: “… approach for this query-able BIM are easy and efficient queries, ability to expose BIM data for ad-hock queries and analysis… query the BIM with standard SQL…”; page 124 Figure 49: “link table”; page 185: “… a location represented (centroid) of the second object…”
Par 39: “… a rule to check whether the gap distance between the two doors is not less than 48”…”; page 42 FIG. 12: “… determine the distance between each pair… is the distance too far… does the distance meet the requirements… record non-compliance and continue…”; page 43: “… require trigonometric calculations to find the path and to determine whether a straight line distance… is sufficient… maximum distance between doors… reasonable distance that sufficiently cover the rule requirement…”; page 44: “… no… pair that has a distance longer than specified…”; page 47: “… spacing between detectors. 1. The distance between detectors for flat ceiling shall not exceed: 7m… and 10m…”; page 48: “… rule requires a sophisticated geometry engine… distance can be checked…”; page 184: “… calculates direct distance between two opening… check the distance of exist doors from an open office…” page 225: “… distance needs to be considered… calculated measuring from the centroid to the centroid…”; par 229: “… calculated a direct distance between all the possible pairs…”; page 231 “… accessibility path analysis…” page 245: “… perform geometry related queries for diagonal distance of a footprint of a group of spaces, and distance calculation…”; page 248: “… pass and fail distance… green lines indicate that the distances fulfill the criteria… distance between exit doors…” EXAMINER NOTE: the above teaches to perform database queries for the purpose of obtaining information that allows geometric calculations of all possible pairs including distance rule checking of, for example, distance to emergency exit doors)
Solihin_2016 does not teach “work time” nor “(E2) listing a record containing a work time ±N seconds from the work time listed in the step (A2) from the environment database; (F2) extracting a record containing the same environment attributes as those extracted in the step (B2) from records listed in the step (E2); (G2) calculating a distance between the environment acquisition coordinates listed in the step (A2) and the step (F2); (H2) calculating a moving speed from a difference between work times listed in the step (A2) and the step (E2) and the distance calculated in the step (G2); (I2) detecting whether the moving speed violates a condition described in the operation rule element in the operation rule table”
Hadon_1998 makes obvious “work time” and “(E2) listing a record containing a work time ±N seconds from the work time listed in the step (A2) from the environment database; (F2) extracting a record containing the same environment attributes as those extracted in the step (B2) from records listed in the step (E2); (G2) calculating a distance between the environment acquisition coordinates listed in the step (A2) and the step (F2); (H2) calculating a moving speed from a difference between work times listed in the step (A2) and the step (E2) and the distance calculated in the step (G2); (I2) detecting whether the moving speed violates a condition described in the operation rule element in the operation rule table” (page 13 – 14: “… rule base 72 containing a plurality of rules and associated optional attributes… sequentially executing each rule in the rule base… attributes of a rule is tied to the current binding in the attribute list 70… during the executing progress, one rule can read value of each attribute from the attribute list… scanning each rule 72 in the rule base… query building needs multiple scanning of each rule… is possible is one example of rules specified in the "world" model of: world IP-rule (world): Requires (required): user.curr-location-latitude (user below. a current location. latitude) user.curr-location-longitude (user. a current location. longitude) Optional (optional): world.max-commute-time (world. maximum-current-time) world.avg-speed-factor-1-biomolecule (world. an average-speed-miles per hour) business.rank-with-Tmin=distance (service. level-with-distance) user.cost-commute Mile (user. cost-AC-mile) Logic (logical): world.max-commute-time and world.avg-speed-factor-1-biomolecule are bound. Then add query predicate destination must be located within commuting distanc of the user's current location (if world.max-commute-time and world.avg-specd-factor-1-biomolecule is bound, then adding query describing the destination must be located within the AC distance of the current location of the user) business.rank-with Tmin=distance-bound and "true" and user.cost-commute-Mile is bound, thenadd query rank WHERE Blood ranks Req " oncost to commute (if business.rank-with-Tmin=distance is bound and the " genuine ". and User-user… the rules define the optional attributes wold.max-commute-time, world.avg-speed-factore…”
EXMAINER NOTE: the work time is, for example, “avg-speed-factor”. The above teaches to query the rules from a rule database and to get the location (latitude and longitude) and based on average speed (i.e., work time) to calculate whether a specific minimum distance can be traversed. The commuting distance from current location.
Solihin_2016 and Hadon_1998 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Hadon_1998. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to have a DIM database schema and to perform geometric rule checks to verify distances including, for example, distances between offices and emergency exit doors. Hadon_1998 teaches a rules database and to perform queries of the rules database and associated attributes to obtain information for the purpose of calculating not only distance but also to calculate whether the distance can be traversed in a time period (commuting distance and time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Hadon_1998 for the benefit of performing an emergency door exit rule check to ensure that an exit door can be reached by a human walking at an average speed within a specified time (i.e., fast enough) to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 24. The limitations of claim 24 are substantially the same as those of claim 4 and are rejected due to the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 5 is substantially the same as claim 4 and rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 25. The limitations of claim 25 are substantially the same as those of claim 5 and are rejected due to the same reasons as claim 5.
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Hadon_1998 in view of Matsubara_2005 in view of Tang_2021 (CN 112686402 A).
Claim 9, 10. Matsubara_2005 makes obvious “further comprising the steps of:
For inspecting an operation plan including a plurality of the operation rules,
By transmitting and receiving information to and from the operation database configured to store and operation plan table storing a plan ID of the operation plan, the rule ID selected for the operation plan, plan attributes for managing whether an inspection according to the operation rule of the rule ID has been executed, and a confirmation date and time for managing a date and time for which execution of the inspection has been confirmed,
[0034] The sixth one is an energy saving control database associated with a routine of generating an operational plan. It includes an ID of routine for generating an operational plan, a name of routine for generating an operational plan (call address), a classification of input data, a classification of output data, a prioritized rank for processing and information about effect on amenity. The classification of input data selects information to be used in the routine for generating an operational plan from that stored in the facility database or the receiving information database. The classification of output data indicates a correlation between an output from the routine for generating an operational plan and control information sent to the BA server 102, accessing to the sending information database
[0095] The remote control server 150 has a plurality of routines for generating an operational plan. A routine for generating an operational plan adapts control, which is applied to a unit, so that the unit is controlled so as to save energy compared with a normal operation. Each routine has an ID. If input and output is common for two or more buildings, a routine can be shared among these buildings. There is a routine which is able to generate a plurality of operational plans, such as a routine for reduction in wasteful energy consumption to be described later.
[0098] Selection for applicable routines for a building results in selection of routines, which provide control required by facilities belonging to the building, from a group of routines for generating an operational plan. The remote control sever 150 obtains a routine for generating an operational plan to be processed in the following sequence: the remote control server 150 selects an ID for the routine for generating an operational plan for a facility of the building from the building database 710, retrieving a name (call address) for the routine for generating an operational plan correlated with the ID in an energy saving control database 740. When a common routine is applied to two or more facilities of the building, it is necessary to retrieve so as not to repeat the process, because it is enough to execute the routine only once.)
Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called building management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to use a database and rule checking to perform facilities management and Matsubara_2005 teaches a to create an operation plan from database tables including a table that provides rules for saving energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Matsubara_2005for the benefit of saving energy when managing a facility to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Tang_2021 make obvious “(A4) listing a record in which the work time has become an inspection date from the environment database by comparing to inspection frequency stored in the rule database;
(B4) detecting violation by performing the steps (A2) to (I2) for a record listed in the step (A4); and
(C4) updating the plan attributes in the operation plan table with respect to a record in which no violation has been detected in the step (B4) to “inspected” and storing the date and time of the inspection in the step (B4) as the confirmation date and time” ( claim 1. A daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform combined method, wherein the method comprises the following steps: step 1.1, establishing electromechanical facility operation state monitoring platform, comprising: intelligent maintenance management sub-platform and staff daily patrol two sub-systems; step 1.2, the electromechanical device fault classification: a primary emergency fault and a non-primary emergency fault; step 1.3, intelligent maintenance management sub-platform through Internet of Things platform remote monitoring the operation state of the electromechanical device; step 1.4, personnel daily inspection of electromechanical device: inspecting and judging device is normal; after inspecting the device, scanning and signing; filling polling list and storing; if the inspection judging device abnormal condition: if the abnormal condition in the inspector processing responsibility range, performing the field processing, after the fault processing, shooting the field processing picture, filling the fault information and uploading, marking the processed; the daily patrol and intelligent maintenance management platform push the task details to the manager, the manager according to the task details of the construction site picture and character condition to the qualification determination, after finishing the daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform generates task audit list, at the same time stored in the MySQL database; then performing cost, performance statistics and knowledge base updating; if the abnormal condition in the inspection staff processing responsibility range, performing notification processing; if the inspector is judged to be one-level emergency fault, using one-level emergency fault processing method; if it is a non-primary emergency fault, the inspector fills and uploads the fault information list; the daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform pushes the fault information the manager; adopting non-one-level emergency fault processing method; step 2.1, a primary emergency fault processing method: daily patrol and intelligent maintenance management platform push task details , manager telephone contact maintenance personnel, immediately performing field repair, maintenance personnel before and after repairing, shooting the field processing process picture, filling and reporting the task detail list, and confirming the fault reason; the administrator verifies the task detail list and then uploading it; the daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform automatically generates task audit list, for the administrator to check; at last, performing cost, performance statistics and knowledge base update; step 2.2, non-primary emergency fault processing method: the manager controls the fault information to fill and upload the corresponding task scheduling list; the daily inspection and intelligent operation and maintenance management platform generates the task detail list; according to the order of the candidate, it is sent to the maintenance personnel; maintenance personnel receiving and confirming, maintenance personnel according to the task detail to the appointed warehouse to collect tool and parts, removing the field for maintenance; maintenance is finished, maintenance staff on the task details single construction process photo and character data, uploading task detail list; the administrator verifies the task detail list and then uploading it; the daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform automatically generates task audit list, for the administrator to check; at last, performing cost, performance statistics and knowledge base update; step 3.1, performance, counting and warehousing cost; comprising step 3.1.1, cost statistics, warehousing: Internet of Things platform will be maintained, maintenance cost operation statistics, summarizing, administrator after auditing, storing the cost database; step 3.1.2, processing staff performance statistics, warehousing: personnel performance calculation, after finishing and auditing by the administrator, storing the performance database; step 3.2, updating the knowledge base; comprising step 3.2.1; after the fault processing is finished, the information obtained when processing is used; updating the knowledge base of personnel, material, device tool, data and fault reason; step 3.2.2, Internet of Things platform according to the task detail list after auditing, cost, performance statistics, and device used in the fault maintenance processing, tool and operation rules, process requirement, maintenance record and consumption of the material information, after judging processing, performing information standardization, storing the corresponding knowledge base; step 3.2.3 fault reason and processing knowledge base updating; comprising daily inspection and intelligent maintenance management platform according to the task detail after auditing, judging the fault reason; the fault is divided into the fault and new fault; Updating the existing fault knowledge base: the daily patrol and intelligent maintenance management platform according to the filled fault information in the related data, calling the fault reason knowledge base, default selection fault reason in the fault processing type list, if the last maintenance personnel after finishing maintenance after filling the reported task details single confirmation of the same fault reason, there is no need to update the model parameter; finding the knowledge data table corresponding to the failure mode in the knowledge base, inserting the corresponding information, updating the knowledge base; updating the new fault knowledge base: daily patrol and intelligent maintenance management platform according to the filled fault information in the related data, calling the fault reason knowledge base, default selection fault reason in the fault information list, if the last maintenance personnel after finishing maintenance after filling the reported task detail confirmation of the fault reason is different; not finding the knowledge data table of corresponding failure mode in the knowledge base; the administrator adds knowledge data table in the knowledge base; the fault type, failure mode fault details and fault reason as input and output of the fault reason knowledge base model, adding the fault processing related knowledge data, re-training model parameter, updating the fault reason knowledge base.
Solihin_2016 and Tang_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Tang_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking to find faults in operational rules and Tang_2021 teaches to update a database with the results of the fault inspection and to notify management of faults. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Tang_2021 for the benefit of having a historical record of the detected faults to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solihin_2016 in view of Hadon_1998 in view of Wei_2020.
Claim 12, 13. Solhin_2016 teaches to perform rules checking and to provide rule check reports (page 186: “the report is an essential part of any rule checking… a visual report will be very helpful to assist the user…”; page 252: “… the intersection results report…” page 299: “… reporting back to interested parties the results of the rule checking…”). Shlihin_2016 does not, however, teaches the report: “… comprising the steps of:
By transmitting and receiving information storing the rule ID, a to-be-notified person ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address to the to-be-notified person,
Transmitting an alert to the to-be-notified person by referring to the notification management database based on the rule ID with respect to the operation rule where the violation has been detected after the step of detecting the violation.”
Wei_2020, however, makes obvious “… comprising the steps of:
By transmitting and receiving information storing the rule ID, a to-be-notified person ID of a to-be-notified person, and a contact address to the to-be-notified person,
Transmitting an alert to the to-be-notified person by referring to the notification management database based on the rule ID with respect to the operation rule where the violation has been detected after the step of detecting the violation” (Page 10: target validation rule is stored in the checking rule set to be check data. wherein the check having a check rule in the rule set aiming at the to-be-checking data for checking. aiming at the different to-be-check data, can be provided with different check rule, and the checking rule pre-stored in the predetermined checking rule in the set. when needing to check data for checking, in the checking rule set to the extracted and matched the target check the rule check data. wherein the design check rule can respectively with a rule check table, the rule classification table, verifying informing the person list, check result track list and check result notification record table)
Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called rule checking. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Solihin_2016 teaches to perform rule checking and to provide reports to interested parties. Wei_2020 teaches to perform rules checking and also to have an “informing the person list” and “check result notification table”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Solihin_2016 and Wei_2020 for the benefit of having a list/table of interested persons that can be informed.to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights