DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an amendment on 4/17/2026.
The application has claims 1-20 present. All present claims have been examined.
Previous rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is made 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 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) 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958),
In regards to claim 10, Guthrie teaches 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. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”); 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. Para 81: “These responses can include communicating with the control algorithms in integrated control layer 418, changing control strategies, changing setpoints, or activating/deactivating building equipment or subsystems in a controlled manner”. Para 88: “The responses to detected or diagnosed faults can include providing an alert message to a user, a maintenance scheduling system, or a control algorithm configured to attempt to repair the fault or to work-around the fault.” On para 138: “In other embodiments, the analysis may further determine what changes have occurred to the BMS between the time of each of the compared projects, and provide additional information around the improvements, or decreases, in performance associated with one or more changes made to the BMS. For example, changes in inventory, firmware updates, etc.” Para 150 mentions physical upgrades “The process 3400 may also provide an analysis of the counts at process block 3416. The analysis of the counts can then be used to generate an internal report at process block 3418. At process block 3420 the internal report, legacy device list and riser diagram may be exported to a sales program for estimation of a cost to upgrade the existing system. At process block 3422 the upgrade may be performed. In one embodiment, the upgrade is physically performed. In other embodiments, the upgrade is simulated. Once the upgrade has been performed, a new scan of the system can be performed at process block 3424. At process block 3426 the process 3400 may provide a list of any remaining legacy devices in the system. At process block 3428 the process may generate the new riser diagram.” Scan performed after upgrade to verify and generate a report which used to make further determination for changes).
In regard 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 regard to claim 13, Guthrie discloses 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 regard to claim 14, Guthrie discloses comprising selecting the action by assessing the change (see para 102, 112-113, 116, 133, 150: determining change based on updated 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, 102-104, 144: running scans to determine bms points. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues”. Also in para 109, “Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time”. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”); 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, 103-104, 107-109, 136-139: comparison and provide differences and available, unavailable, outdated and features not able to be use or perform and providing a report for different parts of the system, data points. At least on Para 5: “Providing a comparison of a current performance and inventory of a BMS against the performance and inventory of a BMS from a past point in time may allow a user to see changes in the BMS system over periods of time. This can provide a powerful tracking tool that can be used by a user to evaluate a BMS over time”. Para 103: “The analysis may include determining firmware versions are installed on the devices of the BMS, and determining if they are out of date, evaluating when the last maintenance was performed on the devices within the BMS, determining when the last database backup of a BMS occurred, evaluating if any devices within the BMS are outdated or obsolete, and/or other analysis requested by the user 702. Once the analysis is completed, the user 702 may instruct the performance assessment tool 500 to generate a report at process block 718. In one embodiment, the report may include information determined during the analysis at process block 716. In a further embodiment, the user 702 may instruct the performance assessment tool 500 to generate a report at process block 718 based on the result provided at process block 710”); and executing a smart building feature of the first subset of the different smart building features (see at least in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”. Para 150 teaches scanning after upgrades Para 150 mentions physical upgrades “The process 3400 may also provide an analysis of the counts at process block 3416. The analysis of the counts can then be used to generate an internal report at process block 3418. At process block 3420 the internal report, legacy device list and riser diagram may be exported to a sales program for estimation of a cost to upgrade the existing system. At process block 3422 the upgrade may be performed. In one embodiment, the upgrade is physically performed. In other embodiments, the upgrade is simulated. Once the upgrade has been performed, a new scan of the system can be performed at process block 3424. At process block 3426 the process 3400 may provide a list of any remaining legacy devices in the system. At process block 3428 the process may generate the new riser diagram.” In para 145 :” At process block 3012 the system features module 514 may determine what, if any, features within the system are underutilized, or not utilized at all. The system features module 514 may analyze the feature utilization attributes to determine which features may be underutilized. In some examples, the system features modules 514 may determine that a feature is underutilized when the features has not been activated within the BMS. In other embodiments, the system features module 514 may determine that a feature is underutilized when the feature is only activated in a portion of the BMS 526. In still further embodiments, the system features module 514 may determine a feature is underutilized if the potential benefits of the feature are not being realized. The potential benefits may include energy savings, cost savings, efficiency increases, etc. In one embodiment, the system features module 514 evaluates the current benefits being realized by the BMS 526, and compare the current realized benefits against similar BMS systems utilizing similar features to determine if the feature is underutilized. For example, the system features module 514 may analyze feature utilization data from other similar BMS systems provided by the knowledgebase 540, such as annual cost savings, equipment efficiencies, percent utilization with sub-systems of the BMS, etc. This information can then be used to compare, or benchmark, the feature utilization of the BMS 526.”).
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 20180102958),
In regards to claim 1, Guthrie teaches 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; 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).
Although Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach a required set of resources for a smart building, Guthrie does teach that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
In regards to claim 2, Guthrie teaches, further comprising determining the needs of the smart building feature based on a result of the scan (see para 102-106, 150 determine requirements).
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach required set of resources.
Guthrie does teach that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
In regards to claim 3, Guthrie teaches, 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 teaches, wherein the smart building feature provides a reduction in operating and maintenance costs associated with building management system, and wherein the method further comprises indicating a comparison between the expense and the reduction (see para 143, 145-150: provides data in impact of implementing and cost).
In regards to claim 5, Guthrie teaches, 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 12, Although Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach comprising: performing an assessment of the change to determine whether the change is sufficient to result in the building management system having a required set of resources for the first smart building feature; and activating the smart first building feature in response to a determination that the change is sufficient to result in the building management system having the required set of resources for 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). Also, in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”. 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 20, Guthrie teaches 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(s) 6 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 the required se of resources for 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 resources for 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.
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach required set of resources.
Guthrie does teach that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
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).
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach the required set of resources.
Guthrie does teach that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
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).
Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach the required set of resources.
Guthrie does teach that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
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 regard 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Although the claims have been amended, the claim language is taught by the teachings of Guthrie.
With regards to claim 1, although Guthrie doesn’t specifically teach a required set of resources for a smart building, the scan that it teaches and the reports that it provides would make it obvious to a person of ordinary skill the art to come to the conclusion of determining required set of resources. For example, Guthrie teaches that scan and inventory provide the user report of needed requirements to the bms. The scan provides updated hardware list. in para 104: “Finally, the key tasks portion 1008 may provide information to a user regarding actions that need to be taken to address the identified critical issues. Also in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… These changes may be used to determine what optimizations, improvements, or additional maintenance is needed in the system.” And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”
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, in order to obtain data of any needed requirements and definition and hardware list for the bms, since it enhances the system in order to properly assess the needs of the bms to properly work.
Applicant argues that Guthrie fails to teach the claim limitations as provided in claim 10, taking actions based on a scan. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, Guthrie provides a bms system that scans at different points and uses the data from the scans to determine updates maintenance, and also after changes have been accomplished scans again. The prior art teaches the limitations as provided by the claim language. At least in para 109, ”Further, a critical issues portion 1204, a preventative maintenance portion 1206, and a key tasks portion 1208 may further show the differences between the critical issues, the preventative maintenance requirements, and the keys tasks between BMS inventory reports generated at two different points in time. And in para 110 “The inventorying process 700 may be used to verify that the BMS systems has been properly installed or commissioned… And in para 112 “” Once the system has been scanned at process block 1310, an updated hardware list and associated performance information may be determined based on the received attributes and/or parameters for multiple aspects of the BMS, at process block 1312”. Para 150 teaches scanning after upgrades Para 150 mentions physical upgrades “The process 3400 may also provide an analysis of the counts at process block 3416. The analysis of the counts can then be used to generate an internal report at process block 3418. At process block 3420 the internal report, legacy device list and riser diagram may be exported to a sales program for estimation of a cost to upgrade the existing system. At process block 3422 the upgrade may be performed. In one embodiment, the upgrade is physically performed. In other embodiments, the upgrade is simulated. Once the upgrade has been performed, a new scan of the system can be performed at process block 3424. At process block 3426 the process 3400 may provide a list of any remaining legacy devices in the system. At process block 3428 the process may generate the new riser diagram.” Scan performed after upgrade to verify and generate a report which used to make further determination for changes. As such the claim language is taught as provided for claim 10.
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 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
Prosecution Insights