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
Claim objections for 1, 11-12, and 19 are withdrawn.
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant amendment have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
35 USC 101:
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 101 rejection based on whether generating device labels for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system” provides a practical application of the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully submits the generation of device labels represents a mental process by the identification of device labels. This involves opinion, observation, or judgment based on correlating an event device with device labels. The determination of a device label involves a generation of device labels by identifying and analyzing available labels or through the creation of labels for event devices. But for the application of generic components or instructions for realizing the execution, the abstract idea is not meaningfully limited by the generation of devices via mentally creating the device labels and realization via computing instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a mental processing including determining a configuration of an event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data (claims 11 11, 19), including cause and effect rules (claims 4, 12-15) , receiving expert approval (claim 5), modifying determined configurations (claims 6, 17, 20), determining device labeling convention (claims 9, 16), and determining device labels for each of the event devices (claim 10), correcting spelling errors, (claim 18), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, and determining device labeling convention based on device labels, and generating device labels for each of a plurality of event devices. The generation may be user generated labels in accordance with a device labeling convention, which in light of the applied prior art, involves an installer identifying an installed device, obtaining a labeling convention, and assigning/generating device labels as part of identifying device relationships based upon ensuring all building devices can be appropriately identified opposed to a building with random, diverse labeling conventions.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) additional limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity including receiving existing configuration, receiving facility data, receiving device labels installing the event system, and displaying (claims 1, 6-7, 15). The receiving limitations represent tangential data gathering while the installing limitation represents a general application that does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. A general installation based on the configuration represents an application of the abstract idea because it follows that components are installed in accordance with design plans. The installation limitations are generally described in a manner that does not detail the specifics of the install. The memory and processor limitations represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 elaborate upon the data types (e.g. types, locations, maps, quantities, includes in the insignificant extra-solution activity and generally link the abstract idea to the field of building configuration by generally reciting installing the event system
As per claims 1-20, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity is considered well-known, conventional, and routine, see MPEP 2106.05(d). The memory and processor limitations represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Moreover, the prior art described below teaches equipment are installed following deployment plans.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (PG/PUB 20180101803) in view over Thakur (PG/PUB 20200285203).
Claim 1.
Tiwari et al teaches a method for configuring an event system (ABSTRACT), comprising:
receiving existing configuration data, wherein the existing configuration data is descriptive of configurations of existing event systems (0006-0007 e.g. “The method can further include storing the deployment plan on a server and retrieving the stored deployment plan on at least one occasion after storing. Retrieving the stored floor plan can be done by at least two different users on unique mobile devices.,” see also 0007, 0009, 0011, 0252, 0327, figure 1B -126)
receiving facility data, wherein the facility data is descriptive of a particular facility (0085, Figure 1B -122, 0211 e.g. “The customer account also includes building description, such as, floor plan, address, number of occupants, typical building usage, etc. As shown in box 124, the IAC tool 102 includes a guided interface which requests building system requirements, including the types of building system (e.g. intrusion detection system, video surveillance, access control, fire safety, HVAC, elevator, etc.) and their desired level of certifications (e.g., NFPA rating for fire safety sensors, ASHRAE standards for HVAC and UL or EN-grade for intrusion sensor):
determining a configuration of an event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data (0089 e.g. “In order to provide a detailed deployment plan the system provides an interactive user interface for specifying building information and user requirements, including automated algorithms for fast placement of sensors and assessment of connectivity, and a visual representation of an installation map to assist with field deployments,” see also 0220 e.g. “The component pairing module 440 analyzes the relationship between the coverage regions of the components on the floor plan to automatically pair components with each other based on component type such that an event triggering one of the paired components would either actuate the other component to perform certain action, or correlate with the event generated by the other components.,” 0225, 0311, Figure 2D, Figure 2K)
installing the event system in the facility according to the determined configuration (ABSTRACT, 0088-89 e.g. “As shown in box 128, the building information is used to generate a bill-of-material and pricing quote for the sales, installation, commissioning of the building system. This step again could be performed either automatically or by a sales representative or a customer with assistance from a computer program provided by the IAC tool. In order to provide a detailed deployment plan the system provides an interactive user interface for specifying building information and user requirements, including automated algorithms for fast placement of sensors and assessment of connectivity, and a visual representation of an installation map to assist with field deployments,” see also 0327-0332)
20200285203 -0048 Figure 4-6 20200133978 -0088 20130085588 20110071685
However, Tiwari does not expressly teach “already installed” and “naming convention” limitations described below. Thakur et al. teaches the “already installed” and “naming convention” limitations described below.
includes receiving device labels for a plurality of devices already installed in the particular facility (ABSTRACT, 0022, 0038 0040-41, 0047-48 e.g. see identifying naming conventions for devices already installed/discovered, Figure 3, Figure 4-102, see also receiving as “once the components have been determined or identified,” the equipment identification/type/name/mode as reading on a device label such as sensor, air conditioner,
determining a device labeling convention based on the device labels (ABSTRACT, 0022, 0038, 0040-41, 0047-48 e.g. see identifying naming conventions for devices already installed, e.g. “Naming data 42 may be or may include naming information applied to components by manufacturers and/or installers. In some cases, the naming data may include contextual information around the component name. For example, as discussed above, naming data for a component may be “VAV 1_22_10 SpaceTemp”, which represents a space temperature sensor for a variable air volume located in room 1_22_10,” see the format of VAV1_22_10SpaceTemp as reading on a device labeling convention for applying to multiple, identified component types. See “based on” receiving component identification, then label the identified component via the naming convention format such as VAV1_22_10SpaceTemp.)
wherein determining the configuration includes generating device labels (0025 e.g. see context generation system as reading on generating device labels as well as operator assignment, see assigning device labels or inputting device labels as generating device labels in accordance with the device labeling convention described above) for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system, wherein the generated device labels follow the determined device labeling convention ((ABSTRACT, 0022, 0038, 0040-41, 0047-48 e.g. see identifying naming conventions for devices already installed, e.g. “Naming data 42 may be or may include naming information applied to components by manufacturers and/or installers. In some cases, the naming data may include contextual information around the component name. For example, as discussed above, naming data for a component may be “VAV 1_22_10,” see SpaceTemp”, which represents a space temperature sensor for a variable air volume located in room 1_22_10,” see also determining the component relationships, names, and applied naming convention as reading on “determine the configuration.”
One of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Thakur, namely applying/generating naming conventions to installed devices for establishing relationships for control, to the teachings of Tiwari, namely determining a configuration for installing building components as well as for installed components, would achieve an expected and predictable result of identifying naming conventions for installed components while also planning the installation of components in accordance with the existing naming conventions to ensure consistent identification, control, and configuration, as described, Thakur, summary of invention.
Claim 2.
Tiwari et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the existing configuration data includes receiving, for each of a plurality of event systems: a type of facility in which the event system is installed; types of event devices included in the event system; and locations of the event devices included in the event system (e.g. see deployment plan comprising facility type, type of devices, and locations, supra claim 1 mapping, see also figure 4B, figure 5F)
Claim 3.
Tiwari et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the facility data includes receiving a map of the facility (supra claim 1, 0085, Figure 1B -122, 0211 e.g. “The customer account also includes building description, such as, floor plan, address, number of occupants, typical building usage, etc. As shown in box 124, the IAC tool 102 includes a guided interface which requests building system requirements, including the types of building system (e.g. intrusion detection system, video surveillance, access control, fire safety, HVAC, elevator, etc.) and their desired level of certifications (e.g., NFPA rating for fire safety sensors, ASHRAE standards for HVAC and UL or EN-grade for intrusion sensor.”)
Claim 4.
Tiwari et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the configuration of the event system includes determining: types of event devices to be installed in the event system (0112, 0138, 0134 e.g. sensors); quantities of event devices to be installed in the event system (0088, 0164) ; locations of event devices to be installed in the event system (ABSTRACT, 0004-0006, 0009); and cause and effect rules for the event system (0118, 0124, 0127, 0144, see also estimating conflicts as described, 0198, 0225)
Claim 5.
Tiwari et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes installing the event system after receiving an approval of the determined configuration by an event system expert (0206 e.g. “After manually and/or automatically placing the component in an optimal location and orientation, as described above, a completed floor plan, as shown in FIG. 2O, is displayed for the final approval by the user. The system 100 allows a user to re-locate, add, or remove components via the user interface, while ensuring that the user is not able to add incompatible sensors.”)
Claim 6.
Tiwari et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method includes:
modifying the determined configuration responsive to receiving an input made by an event system expert; and installing the event system in the facility according to the modified determined configuration (0206 e.g. “After manually and/or automatically placing the component in an optimal location and orientation, as described above, a completed floor plan, as shown in FIG. 2O, is displayed for the final approval by the user. The system 100 allows a user to re-locate, add, or remove components via the user interface, while ensuring that the user is not able to add incompatible sensors.”)
Claim 11.
Tiwari et al teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive existing configuration data, wherein the existing configuration data is descriptive of configurations of existing event systems; supra claim 1 receive facility data, wherein the facility data is descriptive of a particular facility supra claim 1; determine a configuration of an event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data; supra claim 1and display the determined configuration of the event system in a rendering of the facility, supra claim 1
includes device labels for a plurality of devices already installed in the particular facility, supra claim 1, determine a device labeling convention based on the device labels, supra claim 1, determine a configuration of an event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data, supra claim 1, wherein determining the configuration includes generating device labels for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system, supra claim 1, wherein the generated device labels follow the determined device labeling convention; supra claim 1, and
display the determined configuration of the event system in a rendering of the particular facility.
Claim 19.
Tiwari et al teaches a system, comprising:
a processor; a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive existing configuration data, wherein the existing configuration data is descriptive of configurations of existing event systems and includes, for each existing event system, supra claim 1
a type of facility in which the event system is installed; types of event devices included in the event system; supra claim 1
locations of the event devices included in the event system; supra claim 1, receive facility data, wherein the facility data is descriptive of a particular facility in which an event system is to be installed, supra claim 1, and determine a configuration of the event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data, supra claim 1, and
a display device configured to: display the determined configuration of the event system in a rendering of the facility, supra claim 1, Figure 4B, Figure 5F, figure 7F.)
and includes device labels for a plurality of devices already installed in the particular facility; supra claim 1,and determine a configuration of the event system in the particular facility based on the existing configuration data and the facility data, supra claim 1 wherein determining the configuration includes generating device labels for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system, wherein the generated device labels follow the determined device labeling convention, supra claim 1
Claim(s) 7-8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (PG/PUB 20180101803) view over Thakur (PG/PUB 20200285203) in view over Tiwari (PG/PUB 20210258392)
Claim 7.
The method of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the HVAC and BMS limitations described below. Tiwari ‘392 teaches the HVAC and BMS limitations described below wherein receiving the facility data includes: receiving data from a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system of the particular facility (e.g. see discovering HVAC identifiers and location via scanning device codes, 0108, 0346-0347 e.g. see application of scanning codes for device identification applied to BMS devices including HVAC) ; receiving data from a building management system (BMS) of the particular facility (.g. see discovering HVAC identifiers and location via scanning device codes, 0108, 0346-0347 e.g. see application of scanning codes for device identification applied to BMS devices including HVAC) wherein the BMS includes a security system of the facility, and an access system of the facility (Thakur, 0023, 0049-50, 0076-0080, 031 e.g. see identifying location of installed building equipment)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tiwari ‘392, namely obtaining device identifiers associated with BMS equipment, the equipment comprising HVAC systems and BMS components, to the teachings of Tiwari, namely determining a deployment plan for BMS components, to the teachings of Thakur, namely identifying installed component relationships and names, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Tiwari ‘392 is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying BMS system assets for installation.
Claim 8.
The method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of devices already installed in the particular facility include a plurality of HVAC devices and a plurality of BMS devices already installed in the particular facility, supra claim 7 e.g. see discovering HVAC identifiers and location via scanning device codes for pre-existing devices at an installed location, 0108, 0346-0347 e.g. see application of scanning codes for device identification applied to BMS devices including HVAC. A device identifier reads on a device label, see also Thakur, 0031, Figure 3, ABSTRACT)
Claim 15.
The medium of claim 11 but does not expressly teach the device labels described below. Tiwari ’392 teaches the device labels described below.
wherein the instructions to receive the facility data include instructions to receive device labels for a plurality of HVAC devices and a plurality of BMS devices already installed in the facility, supra claim 7
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tiwari ‘392, namely obtaining device identifiers associated with BMS equipment, the equipment comprising HVAC systems and BMS components, to the teachings of Tiwari, namely determining a deployment plan for BMS components, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Tiwari ‘392 is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying BMS system assets for installation.
Claim 20.
The system of claim 19 but does not expressly teach the device labels and indication limitations described below. ‘392 teaches the device labels and location limitations described below
wherein each of the labels includes an indication of an area of the facility in which a corresponding event device is to be installed (Tiwari ‘392, see 0347 e.g. see “information fields: zone location, closest direction, device type, supra claim 7, supra claim 1 Thakur for installation location)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tiwari ‘392, namely obtaining device identifiers associated with BMS equipment, the equipment comprising HVAC systems and BMS components, to the teachings of Tiwari, namely determining a deployment plan for BMS components including location and device type, to the teachings of Thakur, namely including device location as part of the naming format supra claim 1 mapping, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Tiwari ‘392 is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying BMS system assets for installation.
Claim 9-10,12-14, and 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (PG/PUB 20180101803) view over Thakur (PG/PUB 20200285203) in view over Tiwari (PG/PUB 20210258392) in view over Roth et al. (PG/PUB 20080059220)
Claim 9.
The method of claim 8 but does not expressly teach the device labeling convention described below. Roth teaches the device labeling convention described below
wherein the method includes determining a device labeling convention based on the device labels (Roth, 0058-60 e.g. see application of naming conventions for building compliance)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Roth , namely compiling naming conventions for building compliance, to the teachings of Tiwari, as modified, namely obtaining device identifiers/labels, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Roth is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of ensuring compliant naming conventions as described.
Claim 10.
The method of claim 9, wherein determining the configuration of the event system includes determining device labels for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system, wherein the determined device labels follow the determined device labeling convention (supra claim 9, Roth, 0058-60)
Claim 12.
The medium of claim 11 but does not expressly teach the rule limitations described below. Roth teaches the rule limitations described below
including instructions to determine the configuration of the event system in the particular facility based on rules governing event systems (Roth, 0058-60 e.g. see naming convention rules, see also building code compliance, supra claim 1 for rules/conflict remediation)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Roth , namely compiling naming conventions for building compliance and applying rules, to the teachings of Tiwari, as modified, namely obtaining device identifiers/labels, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Roth is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of ensuring compliant naming conventions as described.
Claim 13.
The medium of claim 12, wherein the rules are specific to a country in which the particular facility is located (Roth, 0011 e.g. see governing jurisdictions/country)
Claim 14.
The medium of claim 12, wherein the rules are specific to a state, province, or territory in which the particular facility is located (Roth, 0011)
Claim 16.
The medium of claim 15 but does not expressly teach the labeling convention and location limitations described below. Roth teaches the labeling convention and location limitations described below
including instructions to determine a device labeling convention based on the device labels, supra claim 7, wherein the device labeling convention includes a portion indicating a location in the facility (Tiwari 0347 e.g. see “information fields: zone location, closest direction, device type, supra claim 1, Thakur for location format, see VAV format)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Roth , namely compiling naming conventions for building compliance, to the teachings of Tiwari, as modified, namely obtaining device identifiers/labels, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Roth is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of ensuring compliant naming conventions as described.
Claim 17.
The medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions to determine the configuration of the event system include instructions to determine device labels for each of a plurality of event devices of the event system, wherein the determined device labels follow the determined device labeling convention, supra claim 16
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (PG/PUB 20180101803) view over Thakur (PG/PUB 20200285203) in view over Tiwari (PG/PUB 20210258392) in view over Roth et al. (PG/PUB 20080059220) in view over Hall (PG/PUB 20160335731)
Claim 18.
The medium of claim 17 but does not expressly teach the spelling and redundancy limitations described below. Hall teaches the spelling and redundancy limitations described below
including instructions (e.g. user based formatting instructions/ configuring instructions the device labels that eliminate spelling errors as well as limiting user to single selections to avoid redundancy) to correct spelling errors and redundancies (e.g. as interpreted, one for one correspondence, namely eliminating HVAC and HAVC ambiguity/redundancy) in the device labels for the plurality of event devices of the event system (0191 e.g. “By using the Custom Property of type List feature, the user creates a list with a desired naming convention and then all users thereafter have those choices to pick from so that particular assets are able to be easily found in the system 4210. Such an approach also aids in eliminating spelling and/or typographical errors (e.g., entering “HAVC” instead of “HVAC”, which would result in difficulty locating the item tagged HAVC when looking for HVAC). Accordingly, by creating a List, the naming convention is the same across all objects that utilize that List.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Hall, namely eliminating redundancy by excluding improper references to an HVAC for example while spell checking, to the teachings of Tiwari, as modified, namely obtaining device identifiers/labels, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Hall in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of ensuring compliant naming and asset referencing as described, ABSTRACT, Summary of Invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Compatibility of Sustainable Facility Management and Building Information Modeling Applications: The Role of Naming Conventions, 2022
Automatic rule-based checking of building designs, 2009
20130086066 20240060672 20130086066 2010235455 20170284691 20210258392 -0344-0346: 9964323 10666520 20210258392* 20130086066 20220122358 9836749 20160335731 20140207777 11356519 20130086066, 10666520 15/981695 6957186
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 DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117