DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling on 06/28/2023.
The application has claims 1-20 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Disclosure Statement document (IDS) and references submitted by applicant on 09/08/2023 have been reviewed and taken into consideration by the examiner.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claim should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim doesn’t have a proper end, as provided it ends with a semicolon and an and instead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2 the claim language reads “the change to configured to determined” which should read “the change to determined” as the claim language seems to be directed to asses if the change or update is sufficient to be compliant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3 the claim language reads “a interface remote” which should read “an interface remote”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 15 recites a “Method” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is comparing available points in a building management system and provide indications about the comparison for different building features. See par. 10 of the specification. The steps taken provide an opportunity identify differences that appear on the comparison made to the building management system points.
Limitations under prong 1:
The specific limitations of
- “running a scan…” (this can be accomplished as a mental process for determining the available points).
- “performing a comparison of the available points..” (this is a mental process comparing data).
Limitations under prong 2:
The limitations of "providing, based on the comparison, an indication…”, is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16: “wherein the different smart building features comprise a 16. plurality of fault detection and diagnostics rules” further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958).
In regards to claim 1, Guthrie discloses a method, comprising: running a scan configured to determine available resources of a building management system (see para 7-9, 102, 112: building management system scans and determine features and resources); determining a difference between the available resources and requirements of a smart building feature; determining one or more updates to the building management system expected to eliminate the difference; and implementing the one or more updates (see para 81, 88-90, 106-107, 150: making an evaluation of how to better upgrade the system and performing an upgrade to the system based on the determinations on the analysis).
In regards to claim 2, Guthrie discloses, further comprising determining the requirements of the smart building feature based on a result of the scan (see para 102-106, 150 determine requirements).
In regards to claim 3, Guthrie discloses, wherein determining the one or more updates comprises predicting an expense associated with implementing the one or more updates (see para 150: “estimation of a cost to upgrade the existing system”).
In regards to claim 4, Guthrie discloses, wherein the smart building feature provides a reduction in operating and/or maintenance costs associated with building management system, and wherein the method further comprises indicating a comparison between the expense and the reduction (see para 147-150: provides data in impact of implementing).
In regards to claim 5, Guthrie discloses, wherein the smart building feature comprises one or more of fault detection, fault prediction, predictive maintenance scheduling, air quality management, indoor navigation, active setpoint management, control optimization, load shedding, demand response, digital twin functionality, carbon emissions management, net zero planning, utilization analysis, or autoconfiguration (see para 77, 80, 87-88: optimal control, demand response, fault detection).
In regards to claim 10, Guthrie discloses a method, comprising: detecting a change in a building management system by comparing results of instances of a scan configured to determine available resources of the building management system (see para 7-9, 102, 106-107, 112, 135: building management system scans and determine features and resources); performing, based on the change, an action selected from: installing a device for use in the building management system; updating software on a device of the building management system; activating a first smart building feature for the building management system; or deactivating a second smart building feature for the building management system (see para 81, 88, 150: making an evaluation of how to better upgrade the system and performing an upgrade to the system, also activating or deactivating equipment or subsystems, all based on the determinations on the analysis and data received).
In regards to claim 15, Guthrie discloses a method, comprising: running a scan configured to determine available points of a building management system (see para 4-5, 102, 144: running scans to determine bms points); performing a comparison of the available points to different sets of points used by different smart building features; providing, based on the comparison, an indication of a first subset of the different smart building features able to operate for the building management system and of a second subset of the different smart building features unable to operate for the building management system (see FIG. 12 and at least para 5, 21-22, 77, 86-90, 107-109, 136-139: comparison and provide differences and available and features not able to be use or perform and providing a report).
In regards to claim 16, Guthrie discloses, wherein the different smart building features comprise a plurality of fault detection and diagnostics rules (see para 88-90: teaches fault detection and diagnostic).
In regards to claim 20, Guthrie discloses wherein the building management system comprises devices installed at a building, and wherein the method comprises: initiating the scan in response to a user input to an interface remote from the building; and providing the indication at the interface remote from the building (see para 135-136, 146, 150: can be done when a new device or component is added, provided to a user on a mobile device interface).
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) 6, 11, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 20180292098).
In regards to claim 6, Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach wherein determining the difference between the available resources and requirements of the smart building features comprises determining definitions for points found by the scan by: defining a first portion of the points based on the scan and a common data model; defining a second portion of the points using a machine learning algorithm; defining a third portion of the points based on expert supervision.
Bandyopadhyay teaches wherein determining the difference between the available resources and requirements of the smart building features comprises determining definitions for points found by the scan by: defining a first portion of the points based on the scan and a common data model; defining a second portion of the points using a machine learning algorithm; defining a third portion of the points based on expert supervision (see para 70, 75: teaches bms and using model data; 14, 33, 80-83, 97, 103: teaches using machine learning for device data; 60, 71, 115-117: user control, monitor and adjustments including policy definitions).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Bandyopadhyay in combination with the teachings of Guthrie, in order to obtain needed data and definition for the bms from such sources, since it enhances the system in order to properly asses and respond to the scans of the bms.
In regards to claim 11, Guthrie teaches comprising running the scan at different times to obtain the results of the instances of the scan (see at least para 04-5, 90,107-108: run analysis and scan to compare to different times, a previously done scan and analysis compared to a new/live scan and analysis).
In regards to claim 12, Although Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach comprising: performing an assessment of the change to configured to determine whether the change is sufficient to bring the building management system into compliance with a requirement of the first smart building feature; and activating the smart first building feature in response to a determination that the change is sufficient to bring the building management system into compliance with the requirement of the first smart building feature, Guthrie does teach providing a compliance summary and providing reports of potential issues and service opportunities that would improve the system once the services, changes or fixes are implemented (see para 123-132). Analysis based on updated hardware list to determine the updated hardware metrics, performance, savings and system health (see para 114). It further teaches that some of the changes or fixes detected can be automatically done or worked around (see para 88 and 150).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Guthrie, in order to determine if the updates would meet desired outcome (compliance) and apply the changes/fixes to operate the bms services based on the determination, since by doing so it enhances the system in order to facilitate and properly asses and respond to the scans and fault determination of the bms.
In regards to claim 13, Guthrie teaches comprising determining, based on the change, that the software on the device is obsolete, and, in response, updating the software on the device (see para 133, 150: out of date firmware with vulnerability and updating).
In regards to claim 14, Guthrie teaches comprising selecting the action by assessing the change (see para 102, 112-113, 116, 133, 150: determining change based on updated data received).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 20180292098), in view of Bobker et al. (US 20160161928).
In regards to claim 7, Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach wherein determining the different between the available resources and requirements of the smart building features comprises generating a list of additional points needed for the smart building features which are not included in the points found by the scan based on the definitions for the points.
Bobker teaches wherein determining the different between the available resources and requirements of the smart building features comprises generating a list of additional points needed for the smart building features which are not included in the points found by the scan based on the definitions for the points (see para 44-45, provides list of missing points in order to allow and make them available).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Bobker in combination with the teachings of Guthrie and Bandyopadhyay, in order to provide a list of unavailable points, since it enhances the system in order to properly asses and respond to the scans of the bms ad make them available (see para 44-45).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), in view of Glaser et al. (US 20180196402).
In regards to claim 8, Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach wherein determining the difference between the available resources and requirements of a smart building feature comprises assessing whether a computing device at the building has sufficient available processing power to increase a sampling rate for at least one measurement collected via the computing device.
Glaser teaches wherein determining the difference between the available resources and requirements of a smart building feature comprises assessing whether a computing device at the building has sufficient available processing power to increase a sampling rate for at least one measurement collected via the computing device (see para 51: teaches “valuated to determine whether sufficient processing, network, power, environmental, or other BAS resources are available to successfully fulfill the request. If sufficient resources are available, the requested operation is performed immediately at step 625. If insufficient resources exist, system validation step 620 is performed wherein collected performance parameters are evaluated to determine which, if any, fall below their corresponding baseline standards to identify a potential cause for the resource bottleneck, and optionally take corrective action”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Glaser in combination with the teachings of Guthrie, in order to determine what is insufficient, since it enhances the system in order to properly asses and respond to the determination and make them available (see para 51).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), Glaser et al. (US 20180196402), and in view of Weimer et al. (US 20020014538).
In regards to claim 9, Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach wherein implementing the one or more updates comprises increasing the sampling rate.
Weimer teaches wherein implementing the one or more updates comprises increasing the sampling rate (see para 14, 43 updating sampling rate as determined and needed for a system).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Weimer in combination with the teachings of Guthrie, provide an increase in sampling rate as needed on a system, since it enhances the system in order to properly provide the data the system needs to monitor (see para 43).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), in view of KR 102402640 B1 (hereinafter KR640).
In regards to claim 17, Guthrie teaches further comprising: determining one or more updates to the building management system (see para 102-106, 138, 150 determine requirements or updates needed to improve or address issues).
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach determine… updates to the building management system expected to provide additional points such that a selected smart building feature from the second subset becomes able to operate for the building management system; implementing the one or more updates; and executing the selected smart building feature
KR640 teaches determine… updates to the building management system expected to provide additional points such that a selected smart building feature from the second subset becomes able to operate for the building management system; implementing the one or more updates; and executing the selected smart building feature (see para 6, 8, 14, 17, 27: teaches determining update for a smart feature (control building equipment more efficiently) within a building and implementing the update e.g. replace sensor).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of KR640 in combination with the teachings of Guthrie in order to include the determination to update sensors which would provide the use of available smart building features which require them, since it enhances the system in order to properly use available features that otherwise would provide erroneous data (see KR640 abstract).
In regards to claim 18, Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach wherein implementing the one or more updates comprises installing one or more sensors at a building served by the building management system.
KR640 teaches wherein implementing the one or more updates comprises installing one or more sensors at a building served by the building management system (see para 6, 8, 14, 17, 27: teaches determining update for a smart feature (control building equipment more efficiently) within a building and implementing the update e.g. replace sensor).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of KR640 in combination with the teachings of Guthrie in order to include the determination to update sensors which would provide the use of available smart building features which require them, since it enhances the system in order to properly use available features that otherwise would provide erroneous data (see KR640 abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958), in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 20180292098).
In regards to claim 19, Guthrie teaches wherein method further comprising identifying the available points by: defining a first portion of the available points based on the scan (see para 81-83, 85-87, 90, 95, 97-98, 104: identifying based on scan and analysis).
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach defining a first portion of the available points based a common data model; and defining a second portion of the available points using a machine learning algorithm.
Bandyopadhyay teaches defining a first portion of the available points based a common data model; and defining a second portion of the available points using a machine learning algorithm (see para 70, 75: teaches bms and using model data; 14, 33, 80-83, 97, 103: teaches using machine learning for device data; 60, 71, 115-117: user control, monitor and adjustments including policy definitions).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Bandyopadhyay in combination with the teachings of Guthrie, in order to obtain needed data and definition for the bms from such sources, since it enhances the system in order to properly asses and respond to the scans of the bms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118