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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
As best understood, the applicant has argued:
(1) That McFarland does not teach the feature of “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment”. Applicant argues that McFarland only teaches selecting equipment, not selecting a function associated with the equipment.
Examiner response:
This argument is not found to be persuasive. McFarland discloses a user may select devices that make up the air handling unit, such as cooling coil 124, and that when selected, additional information associated with the cooling coil 124 may be displayed (e.g., See [0007]), and further that additional information or operations may also be provided with pull-down menus or pop-up windows (e.g., See [0033]). The operations presented to the user on the user interface for the selected device are interpreted to correspond to the “function associated with a piece of equipment”; and
(2) That Mairs does not teach the feature of “indicate set points impacted by the selection…”. Applicant argues that Mairs only teaches displaying current setpoints, not setpoints impacted by a function selection. Further, the applicant argues that Mairs setpoints are accessed via equipment selection, not via function selection.
Examiner response:
The argument is not found to be persuasive. Mairs discloses setpoints that are displayed, modified and associated with selected equipment. Mairs setpoints are editable and responsive to user interaction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to indicate which setpoints are affected when a function is selected. This is because if you change a setting on equipment, it’s obvious to show what will change, so that users can understand the effects and avoid any potential problems from changing the setting.
Double Patenting (maintained)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,640,147, U.S. Patent No. 11,079,727 and US Patent No. 10,345,772. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons outlined below in this section.
There are 3 Obviousness Type Double Patenting rejections set forth below.
As previously mentioned, the pending claims are compared to each of:
(A) US Patent No.’s 11,640,147 (hereinafter: ‘147);
(B) US Patent No. 11,079,727 (hereinafter: ‘727); and
(C) US Patent No. 10,345,772 (hereinafter: ‘772).
For purposes of brevity, the pending claims will be laid out, side by side, with respect to the claims patented in ‘147 and each limitation of each independent claim will be discussed, but since the dependent claims are basically a 1:1 correspondence with the corresponding dependent claims of ‘147, a simple chart reiterating this is provided only for the dependents.
A) Analysis of ‘147 is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
65
233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
76
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
50
231
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
52
235
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
21
232
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
21
235
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
42
236
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
82
233
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
22
234
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This feature is not taught by ‘147. See *** below:
*** It is noted that this feature is not explicitly taught by ‘147. However, since ‘147 explicitly discloses a user being able to pick an object and see how it connects to other equipment or space, and to change what information is shown on the screen, and since the system is taught to show relationships and let the user adjust what they see, it would be an easy and obvious implementation to also show which set points are affected when something is selected, thereby allowing for the system to present the effects of system impacts even clearer to the user, and this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
PNG
media_image10.png
76
237
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
81
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
32
235
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
35
262
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
21
232
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
24
263
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
21
231
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
23
263
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
114
230
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
129
263
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
20
228
media_image20.png
Greyscale
This feature is not taught by ‘147. See *** below:
PNG
media_image21.png
45
232
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
26
257
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
38
269
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
22
236
media_image24.png
Greyscale
This feature is not taught by ‘147. See ### below:
*** It is noted that this feature is not explicitly taught by ‘147. However, since ‘147 explicitly discloses a user interface and a dataset being manipulated through a GUI, clearly the system receives a user selection to perform these functions and therefore, the addition of this feature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the purpose of enabling the system to process user choices in the same manner as the GUI menu of ‘147 already processes selections to remove inputs, overrides, or alarms, thereby enabling more interactive control and feedback.
### It is noted that this feature is not explicitly taught by ‘147. However, since ‘147 explicitly discloses a user being able to pick an object and see how it connects to other equipment or space, and to change what information is shown on the screen, and since the system is taught to show relationships and let the user adjust what they see, it would be an easy and obvious implementation to also show which set points are affected when something is selected, thereby allowing for the system to present the effects of system impacts even clearer to the user, and this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
PNG
media_image25.png
73
264
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
74
266
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
35
265
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
36
263
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
23
265
media_image29.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image30.png
21
267
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
36
265
media_image31.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image32.png
34
264
media_image32.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image33.png
36
372
media_image33.png
Greyscale
This feature is not taught by ‘147. See *** below:
PNG
media_image34.png
35
365
media_image34.png
Greyscale
This feature is not taught by ‘147. See ### below:
*** It is noted that this feature is not explicitly taught by ‘147. However, since ‘147 explicitly discloses a user interface and a dataset being manipulated through a GUI, clearly the system receives a user selection to perform these functions and therefore, the addition of this feature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the purpose of enabling the system to process user choices in the same manner as the GUI menu of ‘147 already processes selections to remove inputs, overrides, or alarms, thereby enabling more interactive control and feedback.
### It is noted that this feature is not explicitly taught by ‘147. However, since ‘147 explicitly discloses a user being able to pick an object and see how it connects to other equipment or space, and to change what information is shown on the screen, and since the system is taught to show relationships and let the user adjust what they see, it would be an easy and obvious implementation to also show which set points are affected when something is selected, thereby allowing for the system to present the effects of system impacts even clearer to the user, and this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
The following claim mapping chart is used with respect to pending dependent claims 2-5, 7-13 and 15-20, with the pending claims on the left and the patented claims on the right. No additional explanations are needed since these claims represent a direct 1:1 correspondence with each other:
Claim 2 discloses a relationship of second objects with equipment/space…
Claim 2 discloses a relationship of second objects with equipment/space…
Claim 3 discloses a control path between second objects and equipment/spaces…
Claim 3 discloses a control path between second objects and equipment/spaces…
Claim 4 discloses a relationship and control path together …
Claim 4 discloses a relationship and control path together …
Claim 5 discloses determining equipment and space related to second objects …
Claim 5 discloses determining equipment and space related to objects …
Claim 7 discloses using a dataset to control/monitor an object, equipment or space…
Claim 7 discloses using a dataset to control/monitor an object, equipment or space…
Claim 8 discloses an external system receiving a dataset…
Claim 8 discloses an external system receiving a dataset…
Claim 9 discloses an external display generating GUI that illustrates a relationship/control path …
Claim 9 discloses an external display generating GUI that illustrates a relationship/control path …
Claim 10 discloses an external display generating GUI that illustrates a relationship/control path …
Claim 10 discloses an external display generating GUI that illustrates a relationship/control path …
Claim 11 discloses receiving a selection of an object from an external system …
Claim 11 discloses receiving a selection of an object from an external system …
Claim 12 discloses receiving a selection of an object from an external system …
Claim 12 discloses receiving a selection of an object from an external system …
Claim 13 discloses a dataset including a schedule related to a control strategy over time. ..
Claim 13 discloses a dataset including a schedule related to a control strategy over time. ..
Claim 15 discloses removing operator overrides…
Claim 15 discloses removing operator overrides…
Claim 16 discloses removing input/outputs …
Claim 16 discloses removing input/outputs …
Claim 17 discloses displaying options for changing operation of objects …
Claim 17 discloses displaying options for changing operation of objects …
Claim 18 discloses removing unrelated information …
Claim 18 discloses removing unrelated information …
Claim 19 discloses receiving a selection of objects from an external system…
Claim 19 discloses receiving a selection of objects from an external system…
Claim 20 discloses the external system using a dataset to control/monitor object/equipment impacted via a network …
Claim 20 discloses the external system using a dataset to control/monitor object/equipment impacted via a network …
B) Analysis of ’727 is as follows:
With respect to pending claim 1, and patented claim 1 of ‘727, both claims recite a building management system with a user interface, processing circuits, selection of an object, determination of related equipment/spaces, and a graphical interface illustrating relationships and control paths. However, ‘727 is missing the features of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” (‘727 only recites receiving a selection of an object), and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. However, since ‘727 already discloses a graphical interface responsive to user object selections and control paths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have received selections at the functional level, Similarly, indicating impacted setpoints is a predictable way to extend the same feedback mechanism by classifying the consequences of user choices just as relationships and control paths clarify system operations.
With respect to pending claim 6, and patented claim 6 of ‘727, both claims recite selecting an object, determining related equipment and spaces, and generating a dataset representative of relationships and control paths. However, ‘727 is missing the teachings of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” (‘727 only recites receiving a selection of an object), and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. However, since ‘727 already discloses a graphical interface responsive to user object selections and control paths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have received selections at the functional level, Similarly, indicating impacted setpoints is a predictable way to extend the same feedback mechanism by classifying the consequences of user choices just as relationships and control paths clarify system operations.
With respect to pending claim 14, and patented claim 14 of ‘727, both claims recite a building management system with a user interface, processing circuits, selection of an object, determination of related equipment/spaces, and a graphical interface illustrating relationships and control paths. However, ‘727 is missing the features of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” (‘727 only recites receiving a selection of an object), and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. However, since ‘727 already discloses a graphical interface responsive to user object selections and control paths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have received selections at the functional level, Similarly, indicating impacted setpoints is a predictable way to extend the same feedback mechanism by classifying the consequences of user choices just as relationships and control paths clarify system operations.
With respect to pending dependent claims 2-5, patented dependent claims 2-5, disclose the same relationship views, pending claims 7-13 and patented claims 713 both discuss the use of datasets for controlling/monitoring, and dependent claims 8-11 and 19-20 and patented claims 8-11 and 19-20 both disclose external system integration. However, pending claims 15-18 do not seem to have a counterpart in ‘727.
C) Analysis of ‘772 is as follows:
With respect to pending claim 1 and patented claim 1, both claims recite a building management system with a user device/interface, controller, selection of an object, determination of impacted equipment, spaces, and generation of a user interface illustrating relationships and control paths. However, ‘772 is missing the features of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” (‘772 only recites receiving a selection of an object), and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. Since ‘772 clearly discloses object selection driving system feedback and, in dependent claims 3 and 13, the effects on setpoints and their display, it would have been obvious to allow function-level selections and highlighting impacted setpoints, both being predictable user interface extensions to provide clearer operational feedback.
With respect to pending claim 6 and patented claim 11, both claims recite selecting an object, determining impacted equipment and spaces, and generating a user interface illustrating relationships and control paths. However, ‘772 is missing the features of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. Since ‘772 clearly discloses object selection driving system feedback and, in dependent claims 3 and 13, the effects on setpoints and their display, it would have been obvious to allow function-level selections and highlighting impacted setpoints, both being predictable user interface extensions to provide clearer operational feedback.
With respect to pending claim 14 and patented claim 11, both claims recite a management system that selects an object, determines impacted equipment, and generates a dataset/interface illustrating the relationships. However, ‘772 is missing the features of (1) “receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment” and (2) “indicate set points impacted by the selection”. Since ‘772 clearly discloses object selection driving system feedback and, in dependent claims 3 and 13, the effects on setpoints and their display, it would have been obvious to allow function-level selections and highlighting impacted setpoints, both being predictable user interface extensions to provide clearer operational feedback.
With respect to pending claims 2-5, patented claims 2,4 and 5 disclose the same features of refinements for displaying relationships and control paths. Further, pending claims 713 and patented claims 8-10 and 12-14 both disclose the use of datasets for monitoring and control. Further, pending claim 13 and patented claims 3 and 13 both disclose the integration of scheduling or setpoint effects. However, pending claims 15-18 do not seem to have a counterpart in ‘772.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (maintained)
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0011753 A1, in view of Mairs, US Patent No. 8,099,178 B2.
As per claim 1, McFarland discloses a building management system (e.g., See [0001], which discloses “This application relates to the field of building automation systems, and more particularly to visual monitoring and control of building automation systems.”) comprising:
a user interface configured to display one or more user interfaces to facilitate at least one of monitoring or controlling equipment associated with the building management system, the user interface comprising a graphical display (e.g., See [0002], which discloses “Building automation systems typically gather real-time data… presented at an operations and maintenance center (OMC) so that an operator may monitor and control a building or facility.”; also see [0007], which discloses “The logical graphics display 100 may be displayed in a window 134 … A mouse input device ... may move a cursor in the logical graphics display 100 and select devices … additional information associated with e cool coil 124 may be displayed …”); and
one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (e.g. See [0026], which discloses “With reference to Fig. 3, a block diagram 300 of an operation and maintenance center (OMC) 302… The OMC 302 may have a controller 304 coupled to a memory 306, network interface 308, video controller 310, and input/output (I/O) interface 3412 by address/data bus 314.”; also see [0028], which discloses “The controller 304 may execute instructions that may be stored in memory 306 that facilitates the operation of the OMC 302.”):
receive a selection of a function associated with a piece of equipment (e.g. See [0007], which discloses “The logical graphics display 100 … A mouse input device … may move a cursor … and selects devices that make up the air handling unit, such as cooling coil 124. When selected, additional information associated with the cooling coil 124 may be displayed…”; also see [0033], which discloses “As the device in the logical graphics display 100 is selected (e.g., coiling coil 124) … Additional information or operations may also be provided with pull-down menus or pop-up windows.”);
generate the graphical display illustrating (i) a relationship of a first object with the at least one of a plurality of second objects or (ii) a control path between the first object and the at least one of the second objects (e.g. See [0030], which discloses “Dynamic association may be employed, where the mapping between the logical graphics display 100 and geographic display system data 200 occurs dynamically when a field device … is selected… the points or devices associated with that field device are identified.”; also see [0030], which discloses “The OMC 302 dynamically may also associate the room closest to the temperature sensor 118 with the coiling coil 124 and other field device associated with the air handling unit 1092.”; also see [0031], which discloses “… the controller 304 will then “fade out” or “ghost” the unnecessary elements so that the logical connection between the selected devices that are shown in the logical graphics will be visually maintained.”).
However, McFarland does not specifically disclose indicating set points impacted by the selection for the at least one of the one second objects (Emphasis added).
In analogous art, Mairs teaches this feature (e.g. See C12 L34-38, which discloses “Spaces table 352 … displays a current active setpoint. A user can alter a desired heating or cooling temperature setpoint…”; also see C12 L53-55, which discloses “Pages of user interface 160 relevant to specific equipment are accessible when the user selects equipment tab 260…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of Mairs into McFarland for the purpose of providing a system that not only visualizes the logical and geographic relationships between building objects but which also clearly indicates which setpoints are affected by operator selections, and the benefit of this would be improved overall operator situational awareness, faster troubleshooting, and more efficient building management, which are goals of both McFarland and Mairs.
As per claim 2, McFarland’s combined system (McFarland in view of Mairs) further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate the graphical display illustrating the relationship of the at least one of the second objects with the at least one of (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects or (b) one or more spaces related to the at least one of the second objects (e.g., See McFarland; [0030]).
As per claim 3, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate the graphical display illustrating the control path between the at least one of the second objects and the at least one of (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects or (b) one or more spaces related to the at least one of the second objects, the control path provides a control sequence that facilitates identifying how the at least one of the second objects and the at least one of (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects or (b) the one or more spaces related to at least one of the second objects impact one another (e.g. See McFarland; [0031]).
As per claim 4, McFarland’s combined system further discloses the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate the graphical display illustrating (i) the relationship of the at least one of the second objects with the at least one of (a) one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects or (b) the one or more spaces related to the at least one of the second objects and (ii) the control path between the at least one of the second objects and the at least one of (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects or (b) the one or more spaces related to the at least one of the second objects (e.g., See McFarland; [0031]).
As per claim 5, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine the one or more pieces of equipment related to the at least one of the second objects and one or more spaces related to the at least one of the second objects (e.g., See McFarland; [0030]).
As per claim 6, the rational set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, is applied herein. Further, McFarland appears to further disclose the additional features of:
(1) determine one or more pieces of equipment related to the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0030]);
(2) determine one or more spaces of the building related to the object (e.g. See McFarland; [0030]); and
(3) generate a data set representative of (i) a relationship of the object with (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the object and (b) the one or more spaces related to the object and (ii) a control path between the object and (a) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the object and (b) the one or more spaces related to the object, the control path provides a control sequence that facilitates identifying how the object, the one or more pieces of equipment related to the object, and the one or more spaces related to the object impact one another (e.g., See McFarland; [0029] and [0031]).
As per claims 7, 12 and 13, the rational as already set forth, from above, with respect to the rejection of at least claims 2-5 is applied herein.
As per claim 8, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that an external system coupled to the one or more processing circuits, wherein the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to provide the data set to the external system, wherein the external system includes at least one of a user device or an application accessible with the user device through a network connected to the one or more processing circuits (e.g., See McFarland; [0026]).
As per claim 9, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the external system includes a display device configured to facilitate generating a graphical user interface on a display of the display device that illustrates the relationship and the control path based on the data set (e.g., See McFarland; [0026] and [0028]).
As per claim 10, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the external system is configured to use the data set to least one of control or monitor the at least one of (i) the object, (i1) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the object, or (iii) the one or more spaces related to the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0026] and [0028]).
As per claim 11, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive an indication of a selection of the object from the external system, and make the selection of the object based on the indication (e.g., See McFarland; [0035] and [0041]).
As per claim 13, ‘McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the data set comprises a schedule related to a control strategy over time for the at least one of (i) the object, (ii) the one or more pieces of equipment related to the object, or (iii) the one or more spaces related to the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0008] and [0038]).
As per claim 14, the rational as already set forth, from above, with respect to the rejections of claim 1, is applied herein. Further, McFarland also appears to adequately disclose the following additional features:
(1) determine one or more pieces of equipment that are impacted by the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0030]); and
(2) generate a data set that identifies a relationship of the object with the one or more pieces of equipment impacted by the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0029]).
Further it is noted that ‘753 discloses receiving a selection of equipment and displaying information/menus (e.g., See McFarland; [0007] and [0033]), but does not, as previously discussed, disclose indicating setpoints impacted by the selection.).
As per claim 15, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors remove information from the data set relating to operator overrides associated with the object (e.g., See ‘McFarland; [0031] and [0032]).
As per claim 16, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to remove information from the data set relating to inputs or outputs associated with the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0032]).
As per claim 17, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to display options for changing operation of the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0033]).
As per claim 18, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to remove information from the data set that is not directly involved with the object (e.g., See McFarland; [0032]).
As per claim 19, McFarland’s combined system further discloses that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive an indication of a selection of the object from an external system connected to the one or more processing circuits; and make the selection of the object based on the indication (e.g., See McFarland; [0041]).
As per claim 20. The management system of Claim 19, further comprising the external system, wherein the external system is configured to use the data set to least one of control or monitor the at least one of the object or the one or more pieces of equipment impacted by the object, and wherein the external system includes at least one of a user device or an application accessible with the user device through a network connected to the one or more processing circuits (e.g., See McFarland; [0026] and [0028]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 March 19, 2026
/RDH/