DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 02/11/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward).
Regarding Claim 1, Ro teaches a building system for a building, the building system including one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, from one or more sensors, air quality measurements associated with one or more spaces of the building; (see [0018]; Ro: “As shown in FIG. 2, the environmental condition monitoring device 120 may include a plurality of sensors 202. The sensors 202 may include, for instance, sensors that are to detect various environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, volatile organic compounds, dust, carbon monoxide, etc.”)
generate, using the air quality measurements, a productivity score for at least one of the building or at least one space of the one or more spaces of the building (see [0035]; Ro: “At block 404, a score corresponding to the environmental condition in the structure may be computed based upon the received environmental data. Particularly, the hardware processor 310 may execute the instructions 324 to compute the score. According to an example, the score may pertain to a comfort level and/or a productivity level.”), the productivity score based on a predicted productivity or effect on productivity of one or more occupants of the building in view of the air quality measurements; and (see [0028]; Ro: “the hardware processor 310 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions to receive environmental data 322, compute a score corresponding to the received environmental data 324, determine an environmental condition management operation 326, determine length of exposure of a user device 328, predict a future score 330, manage a user preference 332, output an instruction 334, predict occupancy in a structure 336, and calculate environmental conditions in another structure 336.”)
initiate, based on the productivity score, one or more actions to improve at least one of the productivity score or an air quality of at least one of the building or at least one space of the one or more spaces of the building. (see [0044]; Ro: “In response to a determination that the predicted future score is indicative of an abnormality, the hardware processor 310 may output an alert to a user and/or may output an instructions signal to an environmental condition modifying device 122 to modify an environmental condition and thus prevent the abnormal environmental condition from occurring.”)
However, Ro does not explicitly teach: wherein generating the productivity score comprises executing a model trained using stored data correlating historical air quality measurements to an output of occupants during a timeframe;
Hayward from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein generating the productivity score comprises executing a model trained using stored data correlating historical air quality measurements to an output of occupants during a timeframe; (see [0379]; Hayward: “the impact component 1500 is configured to: (1) receive an assessment of an user's environmental exposures at a property area (e.g., from the detection component 1200), (2) receive an assessment of the user's cognitive functions (e.g., from the cognitive function assessment component 1400), and (3) determine one or more effects of the user's environmental exposures on the user's cognitive functions. See [0380]: “In one embodiment, the impact component 1500 is configured to detect/track one or more changes in a user's environmental exposures and the user's cognitive function scores over time.” See [0369]: “The predictive model is trained to analyze one or more prior changes to indoor air quality over time to predict an upcoming change to the indoor air quality.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ro to include Hayward’s features of generating the productivity score comprises executing a model trained using stored data correlating historical air quality measurements to an output of occupants during a timeframe. Doing so would provide one or more recommendations for improving the air quality of the property, costs estimates and return-on-investment (ROI) estimates for the improvements. (Hayward, [0321])
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the air quality measurements are at least one of: total volatile organic compounds (TVOC); carbon dioxide (CO2); carbon monoxide (CO); ozone; particulates; or formaldehyde. (see [0035]; Ro: “the score may vary depending upon the level of carbon dioxide (CO2), humidity level, temperature, etc., of the ambient conditions in the structure 130.”)
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro and Hayward as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro and Hayward as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward) in view of Rackes et al. (US20180163987A1 -hereinafter Rackes).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the productivity score indicates a predicted work output for at least one first occupant of the one or more occupants of the building, and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
predict a number of absences for the at least one first occupant; and
predict an impact to the productivity score based on the predicted number of absences for the at least one first occupant.
Rackes from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the productivity score indicates a predicted work output for at least one first occupant of the one or more occupants of the building (see [0036]; Rackes: “set of valuation models predict and assign user-weighted values to concomitant impacts on work performance, sick leave, long-term health costs, and energy consumption.”), and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
predict a number of absences for the at least one first occupant; and (see [0043]-[0050]; Rackes: “The loss terms, which all have units of $/occ/h, associated with the six included outcomes are: …2) LEA=PEArEA is loss due to employee excess absence (EA) due to sick leave.”)
predict an impact to the productivity score based on the predicted number of absences for the at least one first occupant. (see [0036]; Rackes: “A set of valuation models predict and assign user-weighted values to concomitant impacts on work performance, sick leave, long-term health costs, and energy consumption. An optimization routine may use these models, combined into a loss function, to determine the ventilation rate trajectory that will incur the least loss, i.e., have the least negative value to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Ro and Hayward to include Rackes’s features of wherein the productivity score indicates a predicted work output for at least one first occupant of the one or more occupants of the building, and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: predict a number of absences for the at least one first occupant; and predict an impact to the productivity score based on the predicted number of absences for the at least one first occupant. Doing so would achieve optimal control of ventilation in commercial buildings that is based on maximizing the value of the expected outcomes of ventilation control to the building operator. (Rackes, [0010])
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Rackes as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Rackes as discussed connection with claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward) in view of Bloemer et al. (US20250224131A1 -hereinafter Bloemer).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the air quality measurements include one or more air quality metrics, and wherein generating the productivity score includes:
assigning weight values to the one or more air quality metrics to generate one or more weighted air quality metrics; and (see [0052]; Ro: “The hardware processor 310 may use this information to, for instance, apply weights to environmental data based upon the proximities of the structures 130 containing the environmental condition monitoring devices 120 with respect to the structure 130 that does not contain an environmental condition monitoring device 120.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach:
executing the model to generate the productivity score using the one or more weighted air quality metrics as inputs to the model
Bloemer from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
executing a model to generate the productivity score using the one or more weighted air quality metrics as inputs to the model. (see [0109]; Bloemer: “The controller 400 is configured to input these user-defined preferences and building conditions as a training set into the machine learning algorithm, which evaluates trends in these conditions over time to determine values of the baseline parameters as a function of different building conditions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Ro and Hayward to include Bloemer’s features of executing the model to generate the productivity score using the one or more weighted air quality metrics as inputs to the model. Doing so would better control of IAQ, more advanced control logic, and more opportunities for efficient and reactive IAQ, energy, and quality control. (Bloemer, [0036])
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
generate, responsive to generating the productivity score, one or more recommendations for actions to impact the productivity score; (see [0022]; Ro: “The computing device 110 may process that data to determine the state of the user during measured environmental conditions and may provide context relevant recommendations and insights to the user based upon the determination.” See [0036]: “the environmental condition management operation may be a operation pertaining to whether one or more environmental conditions in the structure 130 are to be modified based upon the computed score.”)
cause a user device to display a user interface, the user interface including the report; (see [0045]; Ro: “the hardware processor 310 may execute the instructions 332 to communicate instructions to the environmental condition monitoring device 120 to display or otherwise output a query to the user, e.g., through the input/output elements 204. For instance, the hardware processor 310 may query the user for the user's preferences in various environmental condition settings, such as temperature, whether the conditions should be set for higher comfort levels, whether the conditions should be set for higher productivity levels, or the like.”)
receive, from the user device, a user input indicating a selected recommendation of the one or more recommendations; and (see [0046]; Ro: “feedback data may be received from a user responsive to the query outputted to the user.”)
implement, responsive to receiving the user input, the selected recommendation of the one or more recommendations. (see [0048]-[0048]; Ro: “By way of example in which the user has selected a highly comfortable environment, the hardware processor 310 may determine a previously collected user preference that is identified as resulting in a highly comfortable environment. In addition, the hardware processor 310 may identify the settings of the environmental condition modifying device 122 corresponding to the identified previously collected user preference. In addition, the hardware processor 310 may output instructions to cause the environmental condition modifying device 122 to operate at the determined settings.”)
However, Ro does not explicitly teach: generate a report including the productivity score and the one or more recommendations, wherein the report indicates at least one of a predicted amount of absences, a predicted amount of tasks completed, or a predicted impact associated with implementing the one or more recommendations;
Bloemer from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: generate a report including the productivity score and the one or more recommendations, wherein the report indicates at least one of a predicted amount of absences, a predicted amount of tasks completed, or a predicted impact associated with implementing the one or more recommendations; (see [0079]; Bloemer: “The global IAQ metric is determined by combining the weighting factors from the scoring chart. The global IAQ metric may then be displayed visually to a user via the user interface of the air quality controller 400.” See [0096]: “operation 506 may include accessing lookup tables that include recommended values of ventilation flow for different filter types (e.g., different filter elements).”)
The same motivation to combine Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the one or more spaces comprise a plurality of spaces and the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of sensors configured to provide the air quality measurements for the plurality of spaces (see [0051]; Ro: “environmental data may be received from a plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120, in which the plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120 are located at multiple structures 130, and in which the structures 130 are rooms inside of a building”), and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
and generate, using the air quality profiles for the plurality of spaces of the building, one or more trends pertaining to air quality of the building. (see [0043]; Ro: “the hardware processor 310 may analyze the previously received environmental data to identify historical trends of the environmental conditions. For instance, the hardware processor 310 may track how environmental conditions have changed over time to determine if there is a particular trend in the manner in which the environmental conditions have changed and from that trend,”)
However, it does not explicitly teach: generate, responsive to receiving the air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building, air quality profiles for the plurality of spaces of the building, wherein the air quality profiles are generated based on the air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building;
update, responsive to receiving second air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building, the air quality profiles to reflect the second air quality measurements;
Bloemer from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
generate, responsive to receiving the air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building, air quality profiles for the plurality of spaces of the building (see [0068]; Bloemer: “the baseline parameters may be based on sensor data (e.g., outdoor and/or indoor environmental condition sensors, data from a cloud data source such as the system cloud, third party cloud, supplier cloud, the internet, etc.). In another embodiment, the baseline parameters may include occupant preferences for one or more individuals that need to be balanced (e.g., balancing one occupant's desire for energy efficiency, with another occupant's desire for comfort, etc.).” See [0068]: “The baseline parameters may also include cooling habits, information relating to pets within the building, the cleanliness of the building, locations where chemicals are stored, number and location of rooms or spaces within the building, and the like.”), wherein the air quality profiles are generated based on the air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building; (see [0068]; Bloemer: “the baseline parameters may include energy usage goals, information regarding the utility of one or more rooms within the building (e.g., which rooms are used the most), and/or information regarding rooms where IAQ is most concerning.”)
update, responsive to receiving second air quality measurements associated with the plurality of spaces of the building, the air quality profiles to reflect the second air quality measurements; (see [0113]; Bloemer: “the controller 400 is configured to periodically update the baseline IAQ to account for changes in any one of the baseline parameters. In particular, the controller 400 is configured to periodically update the baseline IAQ to continuously improve user comfort.”)
The same motivation to combine Hayward and Bloemer a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more actions to improve at least one of the productivity score or the air quality of at least one of the building or the at least one space of the one or more spaces include one or more control strategies for controlling equipment of the building and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
transmit, to a building management system, control signals causing the building management system to implement at least one control strategy of the one or more control strategies; and
detect, responsive to transmitting the control signals, an improvement to the productivity score or an improvement to the air quality of at least one of the building or the at least one space of the one or more spaces.
Bloemer from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more actions to improve at least one of the productivity score or the air quality of at least one of the building or the at least one space of the one or more spaces include one or more control strategies for controlling equipment of the building (see [0113]; Bloemer: “the controller 400 is configured to periodically update the baseline IAQ to continuously improve user comfort. Referring to FIG. 11, a roadmap 900 of four (4) different control strategies that may be implemented by the controller 400 is shown, according to an illustrative embodiment.” See [0114]: “The controller 400 may determine a priority of operation based on the user's response (e.g., to prioritize/authorize operation of less efficient components to improve reaction time or vice versa).”) and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
transmit, to a building management system, control signals causing the building management system to implement at least one control strategy of the one or more control strategies; and (see [0113]; Bloemer: “the controller 400 is configured to periodically update the baseline IAQ to continuously improve user comfort. Referring to FIG. 11, a roadmap 900 of four (4) different control strategies that may be implemented by the controller 400 is shown, according to an illustrative embodiment.” See [0114]: “The controller 400 may determine a priority of operation based on the user's response (e.g., to prioritize/authorize operation of less efficient components to improve reaction time or vice versa).”)
detect, responsive to transmitting the control signals, an improvement to the productivity score or an improvement to the air quality of at least one of the building or the at least one space of the one or more spaces. (see [0119]; Bloemer: “The controller 400, via the machine learning algorithm may then automatically tweak factors of the predictive system model and iteratively score the predictive power of the system to predict sensor outputs from the collection of system inputs and previous outputs. The controller 400 may use these automatically-tuned models (which predict IAQ control system behavior) as algorithmic instructions to control IAQ components and achieve the desired building conditions (e.g., IAQ environmental conditions, etc.).”)
The same motivation to combine Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Bloemer as discussed connection with claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward) in view of Drees et al. (US20200162354A1 -hereinafter Drees).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the one or more spaces comprise a plurality of spaces and the one or more sensors comprise a plurality of sensors configured to provide the air quality measurements for the plurality of spaces (see [0051]; Ro: “environmental data may be received from a plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120, in which the plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120 are located at multiple structures 130, and in which the structures 130 are rooms inside of a building”),
However, it does not explicitly teach:
and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
generate, using information describing the plurality of spaces of the building, a plurality of space hierarchies, wherein a first space hierarchy of the plurality of space hierarchies associates the first space of the plurality of spaces of the building with a second space of the plurality of spaces of the building;
generate, using the plurality of space hierarchies and a plurality of air quality profiles, a plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies; and
determine, using the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies, whether at least one productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies is outside of a predetermined range.
Drees from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
generate, using information describing the plurality of spaces of the building, a plurality of space hierarchies (see [0221]; Drees: “one or multiple control algorithms may exist for a building subsystem. The control algorithm may form a hierarchy of algorithms and the building cloud platform 502 can, in some embodiments, exercise each level of the hierarchy from the top level of the control algorithm hierarchy to the lowest level.”), wherein a first space hierarchy of the plurality of space hierarchies associates the first space of the plurality of spaces of the building with a second space of the plurality of spaces of the building; (see [0352]; Drees: “space 2963 is a top level space in a hierarchy of spaces. For example, space 2963 can represent an entire campus (i.e., a collection of buildings).”)
generate, using the plurality of space hierarchies and a plurality of air quality profiles, a plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies; and (see [0197]; Drees: “In step 1308, the building cloud platform 502 can identify faulty subsystems based on the collected subsystem data of the step 1306. In some embodiments, the determination may be that a subsystem is operating properly based on subsystem level metrics.”)
determine, using the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies, whether at least one productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies is outside of a predetermined range. (see [0197]; Drees: “an energy consumption metric for a particular subsystem may be above a predefined amount, indicating that the subsystem is not operating properly. Furthermore, for a heating or cooling subsystem, an ambient temperature may be outside a predefined range during the exercise, indicating that the heating or cooling subsystem is not operating properly.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ro and Hayward to include Drees’s features of generating, using information describing the plurality of spaces of the building, a plurality of space hierarchies, wherein a first space hierarchy of the plurality of space hierarchies associates the first space of the plurality of spaces of the building with a second space of the plurality of spaces of the building; generating, using the plurality of space hierarchies and a plurality of air quality profiles, a plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies; and determining, using the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies, whether at least one productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores for the plurality of space hierarchies is outside of a predetermined range. Doing so would optimize resource usage (e.g., electricity use, natural gas use, water use, etc.) and/or the monetary cost of such resource usage in response to satisfy the demand of building. (Drees, [0118])
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Drees as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward) in view of Arakawa et al. (US20220214059A1 -hereinafter Arakawa).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
determine whether the productivity score is within a predetermined range; (see [0016]; Ro: “the computing device 110 may determine whether the environmental conditions within the structure 130 are within desirable ranges or if the conditions are abnormal, e.g., outside of predetermined ranges.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach:
cause, in response to determining that the productivity score is not within the predetermined range, a building management system to take action to adjust the productivity score; and
maintain, in response to adjusting the productivity score, the productivity score within the predetermined range.
Arakawa from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
cause, in response to determining that the productivity score is not within the predetermined range, a building management system to take action to adjust the productivity score; and (see [0051]; Arakawa: “If controller 32 determines that the value of the calculated general air quality index is out of the target range (No in S14), controller 32 controls ventilator 40 to bring the general air quality index close to the target range (S15).”)
maintain, in response to adjusting the productivity score, the productivity score within the predetermined range. (see [0052]; Arakawa: “until controller 32 determines that the value of the calculated general air quality index is within the target range, the processing from steps S12 to S15 is repeated.” See [0054]: “when controller 32 determines that the value of the calculated general air quality index is within the target range (Yes in S14), controller 32 causes ventilator 40 to operate under an optimal condition (for example, a setting condition for maintaining the current state) (S16).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ro and Hayward to include Arakawa’s features of causing, in response to determining that the productivity score is not within the predetermined range, a building management system to take action to adjust the productivity score; and maintaining, in response to adjusting the productivity score, the productivity score within the predetermined range. Doing so would effectively improve air quality in an indoor space. (Arakawa, [0005])
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Ro, Hayward, and Arakawa as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro et al. (US20160231014A1 -hereinafter Ro) in view of Hayward (US20210151195A1 -hereinafter Hayward) in view of Cowell De Gruchy (US20240220901A1 -hereinafter Gruchy).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ro and Hayward teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ro further teaches wherein the one or more spaces comprise a plurality of spaces, (see [0051]; Ro: “environmental data may be received from a plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120, in which the plurality of environmental condition monitoring devices 120 are located at multiple structures 130, and in which the structures 130 are rooms inside of a building”)
However, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the productivity score includes an aggregated value of a plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine, using the plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, a difference between a first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and a second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores, wherein the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a first space of the plurality of spaces and wherein the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a second space of the plurality of spaces; determine, using the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores, whether the difference exceeds a predetermined range; and generate, responsive to determining that the difference exceeds the predetermined range, one or more recommendations for actions that impact the productivity score, wherein the one or more recommendations indicate that occupants move from the first space of the plurality of spaces to the second space of the plurality of spaces or that occupants move from the second space of the plurality of spaces to the first space of the plurality of spaces; wherein the occupants moving causes the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores to be within the predetermined range.
Gruchy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the productivity score includes an aggregated value of a plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, (see [0019]; Gruchy: “The environmental performance scores of all sensors are aggregated to give a healthy building score”) and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
determine, using the plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, a difference between a first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and a second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores (see [0224]; Gruchy: “From this and an understanding of the spatial relationships between sensors, we then build up an idea of rooms and floors in a building as part of our hierarchy—such that each room in a floor may have a score”. See [0441]: “The aim of the steps below is to calculate the difference between the actual temperature of the water (using a probe), and the sensor's reading in the Web App.”), wherein the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a first space of the plurality of spaces and wherein the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a second space of the plurality of spaces; (see [0033]; Gruchy: “the scoring algorithm aggregates the environmental performance scores from multiple sensors, measuring multiple different environmental parameters.”)
determine, using the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores, whether the difference exceeds a predetermined range; (see [0066]; Gruchy: “the user interface displays an automatically generated description of one or more predicted issues or problems associated with environmental performance scores that exceed thresholds.”) and
generate, responsive to determining that the difference exceeds the predetermined range, one or more recommendations for actions that impact the productivity score (see [0131]; Gruchy: “The Infogrid system automatically analyses data from a sensor and determines whether the associated environmental parameter is within its acceptable threshold or not: it can predict what a future value of that parameter might be. For instance, if the air temperature in a room early in the morning is already nearing its acceptable maximum, the system can determine that, once the room is fully occupied, then the temperature limit will be exceeded.”), wherein the one or more recommendations indicate that occupants move from the first space of the plurality of spaces to the second space of the plurality of spaces or that occupants move from the second space of the plurality of spaces to the first space of the plurality of spaces; (see [0131]; Gruchy: “It can flag this as a potential issue in the user interface, and suggest remedial action (e.g. from a library of candidate actions), such as requiring new users of that room to instead find an alternative room to use.”)
wherein the occupants moving causes the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores to be within the predetermined range. (see [0210]; Gruchy: “Occupancy: The Infogrid system tracks the movement of people to monitor space usage, control social distancing and limit access at the busiest times. It understands which rooms, desks and facilities are being used (see also Appendix 3 for a detailed description of the desk occupancy measuring system), when and for how long, to better utilise facilities and guide users to free space. The Infogrid system optimises the use of rooms and observation of social distancing measures by tracking the movement of people through spaces, and optimises maintenance team rotas, e.g. to ensure maintenance and support is provided where needed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Ro and Hayward to include Gruchy’s features of wherein the productivity score includes an aggregated value of a plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, and wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determining, using the plurality of productivity scores of the plurality of spaces, a difference between a first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and a second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores, wherein the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a first space of the plurality of spaces and wherein the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores pertains to a second space of the plurality of spaces; determining, using the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores, whether the difference exceeds a predetermined range; and generate, responsive to determining that the difference exceeds the predetermined range, one or more recommendations for actions that impact the productivity score, wherein the one or more recommendations indicate that occupants move from the first space of the plurality of spaces to the second space of the plurality of spaces or that occupants move from the second space of the plurality of spaces to the first space of the plurality of spaces; wherein the occupants moving causes the difference between the first productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores and the second productivity score of the plurality of productivity scores to be within the predetermined range. Doing so would increase building monitoring efficiency, reduce costs in building operations, enhance health and wellbeing for staff, enhance sustainability, optimize maintenance, and strengthen compliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cowell De Gruchy (US20240220901A1) discloses automatically processing the environmental performance parameters such as air quality and desk occupancy, using a scoring algorithm running on a processor, to generate an overall healthy building score.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights