DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a system configuration tool configured to provide a plan for installation of a building management system (BMS)”, “a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of devices and equipment of the BMS as installed at a building”, “a performance verification tool configured to run a scan of the BMS and collect combined commissioning data by combining a result of the scan with the plan from the system configuration tool and commissioning information from the guided workflow application”, “an auto-configurator configured to build a digital twin of the BMS using the combined commissioning data”, “an enterprise manager configured to alter operations of the equipment of the BMS in affecting a variable state or condition of the building using a smart building feature reliant on the digital twin” in claim 1,
“the guided workflow application is configured to provide a commissioning workflow based on the plan from the system configuration tool” in claim 2,
“the auto-configurator is further configured to adjust the digital twin based on historical operating data from the building management system relating to actual equipment operations” in claim 4,
“active setpoint management configured to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions associated with the building management system” in claim 5,
“the enterprise manager is further configured to enhance the digital twin based on service and warranty data” in claim 6,
and “a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of the equipment and collect the actual commissioning data” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes.
Step 1: Statutory CategoryClaims 1-7 are directed to a machine. Claims 8-12 and 13-20 are directed to a process.
Step 2A Prong I: Judicial Exception
The examiner submits that the following limitations constitute a mental process, as the claims cover performance of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
A system, comprising:
a system configuration tool configured to provide a plan for installation of a building management system (BMS);
a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of devices and equipment of the BMS as installed at a building;
a performance verification tool configured to run a scan of the BMS and collect combined commissioning data by combining a result of the scan with the plan from the system configuration tool and commissioning information from the guided workflow application;
an auto-configurator configured to build a digital twin of the BMS using the combined commissioning data; and
an enterprise manager configured to alter operations of the equipment of the BMS in affecting a variable state or condition of the building using a smart building feature reliant on the digital twin.
The limitations “provide a plan for installation of a building management system (BMS)”, “combining a result of the scan with the plan from the system configuration tool and commissioning information from the guided workflow application”, and “build a digital twin of the BMS using the combined commissioning data” amount to mental processes utilizing observations, evaluations, and judgements. A person can, with use of a pen and paper, perform the mental process of planning an installation of a BMS. A person can perform the mental process of combining multiple data sources into one. A person can, using a pen and paper, perform the mental process of modeling a “digital twin” based on data by identifying corresponding elements and organizing information, based on observations, evaluations, and judgments, in a representative manner.
Step 2A Prong II: Integration into Practical Application
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only presents general field of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra solution activity:
A system, comprising: (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
a system configuration tool configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
a guided workflow application configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
a performance verification tool configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
run a scan of the BMS and collect combined commissioning data (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
an auto-configurator configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
an enterprise manager configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
alter operations of the equipment of the BMS in affecting a variable state or condition of the building using a smart building feature reliant on the digital twin. (insignificant extra-solution activity, insignificant application, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
The word “digital” in the term “digital twin” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The word “digital” invokes mere generic computing components to carry out the claimed task, which can be performed mentally.
The limitations containing “configured to”, being interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), have corresponding structure that includes processors and memory, which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components. Running a scan to collect data is considered mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). To “alter operations” based on a “digital twin” is insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites the following:
When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); Flook, 437 U.S. at 593-95, 198 USPQ at 197 (a formula would not be patentable by only indicating that is could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding the first consideration, the limitation of using a digital twin to control a “variable state or condition” is well known in the art (Marquez “Background” [0009], “The digital twin may be a BIM that is supplemented with device related information, or may incorporate the BIM data. Such digital twin (e.g., visible using an app) may facilitate facility management at various levels. At times, input from building occupants may server as a feedback tool to customize control of the facility (e.g., control devices in the facility).”) Marquez also gives specific examples of the digital twin controlling a “variable state or condition” (Marquez [0014], “The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”). The primary use cases for digital twin techniques utilize both inputs and outputs, modeling a system, and controlling a system based on the digital twin model. Regarding the second consideration, the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. The utilization of readily available output from the digital twin model is only tangentially related to the commissioning of a BMS and creation of the digital twin model. Regarding the third consideration, none of the recited judicial exceptions require the data output of the digital twin model. Thus, this limitation “alter operations of the equipment of the BMS in affecting a variable state or condition of the building using a smart building feature reliant on the digital twin” is being interpreted as extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Significantly More
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements
of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. Furthermore, all additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art. Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 2 recites the additional limitations: The system of Claim 1, wherein the guided workflow application is configured to provide a commissioning workflow based on the plan from the system configuration tool.
The limitation “provide a commissioning workflow based on the plan from the system configuration tool” is an abstract mental process. A person can, with a pen and paper, perform the mental process of creating a workflow to enable commissioning of a BMS based on a plan.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 3 recites the additional limitations: The system of Claim 1, wherein the plan comprises control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models.
The limitation wherein the plan comprises control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models.” is merely linking the judicial exception “provide a plan for installation of a building management system (BMS)” of claim 1 to a general field of use, “control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models”, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 4 recites the additional limitations: The system of Claim 1, wherein the auto-configurator is further configured to adjust the digital twin based on historical operating data from the building management system relating to actual equipment operations.
The limitation “adjust the digital twin based on historical operating data from the building management system relating to actual equipment operations” is an abstract mental process. A person can, with a pen and paper, adjust a model based on acquired data.
The additional limitation “wherein the auto-configurator is further configured to” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 5 recites the additional limitations: The system of Claim 1, wherein the smart building features comprises active setpoint management configured to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions associated with the building management system. This limitation further constitutes extra solution activity, see the prior analysis of claim 1, and MPEP § 2106.05(g).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 6 recites the additional limitations: The system of Claim 1, wherein the enterprise manager is further configured to enhance the digital twin based on service and warranty data.
Given 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation, “enhance the digital twin” is being interpreted as adjusting the digital twin by correlating the “service and warranty data” with devices/points in the digital twin model. A person can, with a pen and paper, adjust a digital twin model to incorporate additional data elements.
The additional limitation “wherein the enterprise manager is further configured to” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 1, claim 7 recites the additional limitation: The system of Claim 1, wherein the commissioning information comprises two or more of device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, or recorded wiring diagrams. This additional limitation amounts to merely linking a judicial exception to a specific field of use. By reciting “device location data”, “test values of point verification”, “recorded control drawings”, “recorded point lists”, and “recorded wiring diagrams” the limitation links the abstract process of building the digital twin model to the specific field of building management system commissioning.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations:
A method, comprising: populating a digital twin of a building based on a BMS design plan indicating equipment to be installed at a building;
collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions the equipment at the building;
and adjusting the digital twin based on the actual commissioning data;
and influencing operations of the equipment using the digital twin.
The limitations “populating a digital twin of a building based on a BMS design plan indicating equipment to be installed at a building” and “adjusting the digital twin based on the actual commissioning data” amount to mental processes utilizing observations, evaluations, and judgements. A person can, using a pen and paper, perform the mental process of modeling a “digital twin” based on data by identifying corresponding elements and organizing information, based on observations, evaluations, and judgments, in a representative manner. A person can then modify the model based on a new set of data.
Claim 8 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only presents general field of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra solution activity:
collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions the equipment at the building; (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
and influencing operations of the equipment using the digital twin. (insignificant extra-solution activity, insignificant application, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This limitation is being given the same analysis of the limitation of claim 1, “alter operations of the equipment…”, and is being interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reasons.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 8, claim 9 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 8, wherein the BMS design plan comprises control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models.
The limitation “wherein the BMS design plan comprises control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models” is merely linking the judicial exception “populating a digital twin of a building based on a BMS design plan indicating equipment to be installed at a building” of claim 8 to a general field of use, “control drawings, point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models”, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 8, claim 10 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 8, further comprising adjusting the digital twin based on historical operating data from the equipment and the building.
The limitation “adjusting the digital twin based on historical operating data from the equipment and the building” is an abstract mental process. A person can, with a pen and paper, adjust a model based on acquired data.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 8, claim 11 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 8, wherein the actual commissioning data comprises two or more of device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, or recorded wiring diagrams.
This additional limitation amounts to merely linking a judicial exception to a specific field of use. By reciting “device location data”, “test values of point verification”, “recorded control drawings”, “recorded point lists”, and “recorded wiring diagrams” the limitation links the abstract process of building the digital twin model to the specific field of building management system commissioning.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 8, claim 12 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 8, comprising enhancing the digital twin over time based on data from a building life cycle, wherein the data comprises warranty and service data.
The limitation “enhancing the digital twin over time” is being interpreted as adjusting the digital twin by correlating the “warranty and service data” with devices/points in the digital twin model. A person can, with a pen and paper, adjust a digital twin model to incorporate additional data elements.
The additional limitation “based on data from a building life cycle, wherein the data comprises warranty and service data.” amounts to merely linking to a field of use of building management, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
A method of classifying points and relationships between points and special surroundings by:
collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions equipment at a building;
adjusting a digital twin based on the actual commissioning data.
The limitations “classifying points and relationships between points and special surroundings” and “adjusting a digital twin based on the actual commissioning data” amount to mental processes utilizing observations, evaluations, and judgements. A person can, using a pen and paper, perform the mental process of “classifying points and relationships between points and special surroundings”. A person can perform the mental process of modifying a model based on a set of data.
Claim 13 recites the following additional claim limitation outside the abstract idea which only presents insignificant extra solution activity:
collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions equipment at a building; (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 14 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 13, comprising providing a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of the equipment and collect the actual commissioning data.
Given 112(f) interpretation, the corresponding structure to the limitation “enable commissioning of the equipment” comprises creating a plan or workflow for commissioning. A person can perform the mental process of creating a plan or workflow.
Claim 14 recites the following additional claim limitation outside the abstract idea:
providing a guided workflow application configured to (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
collect the actual commissioning data. (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 15 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 13, wherein the actual commissioning data comprises device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, and recorded wiring diagrams.
This additional limitation amounts to merely linking a judicial exception to a specific field of use. By reciting “device location data”, “test values of point verification”, “recorded control drawings”, “recorded point lists”, and “recorded wiring diagrams” the limitation links the abstract process of building the digital twin model to the specific field of building management system commissioning.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 16 recites the additional limitations: The method of Claim 13, wherein the digital twin is further based on plan for installation of building management system (Merely linking to a field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) The limitation merely links the abstract idea of the digital twin to the field of use of building management systems.
provided by a system configuration tool. (mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 17 recites the additional limitations:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising adjusting the digital twin
by: running a scan of points present in a building management system for the building; and updating the digital twin based on a result of the scan.
Regarding the limitations “adjusting the digital twin” and “updating the digital twin based on a result of the scan”, a person can perform the mental process of adjusting a model.
Claim 17 contains the additional limitation not directed to a judicial exception which amounts to extra-solution activity: running a scan of points present in a building management system for the building (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 18 recites the additional limitation which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising controlling equipment serving the building using the digital twin. (insignificant extra-solution activity, insignificant application, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This limitation is being given the same analysis of the limitation of claim 1, “alter operations of the equipment…”, and is being interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reasons.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 19 recites the additional limitations:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising commissioning the equipment by providing an interface between a user and the equipment, wherein the interface facilitates commissioning
and collects the actual commissioning data.
The limitation “facilitates commissioning” given broadest reasonable interpretation is mental process. A person can perform the mental process of facilitating a commissioning process by creating plans or a workflow.
Claim 19 contains additional limitations not directed to a judicial exception:
commissioning the equipment by providing an interface between a user and the equipment, wherein the interface…
(mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computing components, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) The generic computing component of “interface” merely serves to execute the limitation “facilitates commissioning”, which can be performed as a mental process.
(insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the abstract idea of claim 13, claim 20 recites the additional limitations:
The method off Claim 13, wherein adjusting the digital twin based on the actual commissioning data provides an update corresponding to a discrepancy between actual installation or commissioning and planned installation or commissioning.
A person can perform the mental process of adjusting a model based on a set of data. Additionally a person can perform the mental observation and judgments required to find discrepancies in data sets, and can perform the mental process of adjusting according to those datasets.
Additionally the limitations “actual installation or commissioning” and “planned installation or commissioning” constitute merely linking to the field of commissioning building management systems, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Double Patenting
Claims 8 and 12 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 8 and 12 of Application No. 18222827. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8 and 12 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 8 and 12 of copending Application No. 18222827 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18222827 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 9 are entirely anticipated by claim 13 in the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 8, 12-13, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquez et al. (WIPO 2022/098630 A1, 2022-5-12).
Regarding claim 8, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
A method, comprising: populating a digital twin of a building based on a BMS design plan indicating equipment to be installed at a building; (Marquez [0182], “Process 900 begins by gathering building information from architectural drawings 901. Using the building information provided by architectural drawings, a designer or design team creates interconnect drawings 902 which include plans for a network at a particular site.”) (Marquez [0169], “Network components may be referenced in an object by at least a network ID. When initially generated from the digital twin (e.g., the interconnect drawing), a network configuration file may be incomplete in the sense that it does not yet include network IDs for at least one of the controllers.”)
collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions the equipment at the building; (Marquez [0165]-[0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
and adjusting the digital twin based on the actual commissioning data; (Marquez [0165]-[0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
and influencing operations of the equipment using the digital twin. (Marquez [0174], “In some embodiments, control logic communicates with window control intelligence, a BMS, and/or a security system. For example, a BMS may configure all windows to their tinted state in order to save cooling costs in the event of a power outage.”)
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Marquez teaches the following limitations: The method of Claim 8, comprising enhancing the digital twin over time based on data from a building life cycle, wherein the data comprises warranty and service data. (Marquez [0206], “a target device present in a real facility may have a corresponding virtual graphic representation in the digital twin. The digital twin may include corresponding data records for the target device with unique identifying information (e.g., ID code or serial number, MAC address, and/or location) and generic information (type of device, manufacturer, and any other device characteristics, feature and/or attribute, e.g., as disclosed herein). By linking the identification code, location of target device, and the digital twin, functions such as building management, maintenance, servicing, and/or repair can be greatly improved (e.g., in efficiency). Over time, the data records may compile service history and/or (e.g., current) device status, which can be updated into the at least one database comprising the target device (e.g., which can be accessible through the digital twin). Service performed may be updated (e.g., in real-time or after service) into the database (e.g., comprising the status information relating to the device (e.g., that may be accessible through the digital twin). ”)
Regarding claim 13, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
A method of classifying points and relationships between points and special surroundings (Marquez [0159], “Interconnect drawings may depict wire routing (e.g., trunk lines) at a site, the positioning of various devices on the network (e.g., controllers, power supplies, control panels, windows, emitters, and/or sensors), and identifying information of network components (e.g., a network ID).”)
by: collecting actual commissioning data as a technician installs and commissions equipment at a building; (Marquez [0165]-[0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
adjusting a digital twin based on the actual commissioning data. (Marquez [0165]-[0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Marquez teaches the following limitation: The method of Claim 13, wherein the digital twin is further based on plan for installation of building management system provided by a system configuration tool. (Marquez [0182], “Process 900 begins by gathering building information from architectural drawings 901. Using the building information provided by architectural drawings, a designer or design team creates interconnect drawings 902 which include plans for a network at a particular site.”) (Marquez [0169], “Network components may be referenced in an object by at least a network ID. When initially generated from the digital twin (e.g., the interconnect drawing), a network configuration file may be incomplete in the sense that it does not yet include network IDs for at least one of the controllers.”)
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising commissioning the equipment by providing an interface between a user and the equipment, (Marquez [0188], “a control system and/or control interface comprises a “digital twin” of a facility. For example, the digital twin may comprise a representative model (e.g., a two-dimensional or three-dimensional virtual depiction) containing structural elements (e.g., walls and doors), building fixtures/furnishings, and one or more interactive target devices (e.g., optically switchable windows, sensors, emitters, and/or media displays). The digital twin may reside on a server which is accessible via a graphical user interface, or which can be accessed using a virtual reality (VR) user interface. The VR interface may include an augmented reality (AR) aspect.”)
wherein the interface facilitates commissioning and collects the actual commissioning data. (Marquez [0188], “The digital twin may be utilized in connection with monitoring and servicing of the building infrastructure and/or in connection with controlling any interactive target devices, for example.”)
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
The method off Claim 13, wherein adjusting the digital twin based on the actual commissioning data provides an update corresponding to a discrepancy between actual installation or commissioning and planned installation or commissioning. (Marquez [0164], “Modifications to interconnect drawings may be required in certain situations. For example, an installer might determine that a window opening is too small for the window prescribed by the instructions in the digital twin (e.g., interconnect drawings and/or BIM) and decide to install a smaller window. To correct for the change, the digital twin may need to be updated. A network configuration file or other structure storing mappings between devices (e.g., optically switchable windows) and associated controllers may be created or modified to reflect the real-world installation.”)
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) 1-7, 9-11, 14-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwimagi et al. (PGPUB US 2005/0119767 A1) in view of Marquez et al. (WIPO 2022/098630 A1, 12-5-2022).
Regarding claim 1, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
A system, comprising: (Kiwimagi [0005], “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”)
a system configuration tool configured to provide a plan for installation of a building management system (BMS); (Kiwimagi [0015], “a configuration application (e.g., software) may be provided for configuring a building automation system. The configuration application allows an integrator (or other user) to acquire an electronic layout of the building, e.g., by importing an electronic image file of the building floor plan. The integrator may "drag and drop" graphical cons representing various automation devices onto the electronic layout, connect the devices, and customize operation of the devices.”)
a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of devices and equipment of the BMS as installed at a building; (Kiwimagi [0017], “the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
a performance verification tool configured to run a scan of the BMS (Kiwimagi [0090], “FIG. 11 is a flow diagram illustrating exemplary operations 1100 for automatic error reporting for a building automation system. In operation 1110 an error may be reported. Error reporting may include identifying the site (e.g., the building address or customer name), identifying the automation device experiencing the error (e.g., triac ID #### or lighting ID ####), and identifying the error itself (e.g., "overheating triac" or "burned-out bulb").”)
and collect combined commissioning data by combining a result of the scan with the plan from the system configuration tool and commissioning information from the guided workflow application; (Kiwimagi [0091, “In operation 1120 a connection may be established with the building automation system. For example, a remote connection may be established from a service center. In operation 1130 the site and device may be displayed (e.g., for a service center representative) and the error may be corrected in operation 1140. For example, the service center representative may remotely disconnect an overheating triac or may notify the building owner to disconnect an overheating triac until a repair can be made.”]) In Kiwimagi the error (result of the scan) is being combined with data from the building automation system.
and an enterprise manager configured to alter operations of the equipment of the BMS in affecting a variable state or condition of the building using a smart building feature reliant on the digital twin. (Kiwimagi [0088], “Commissioning the house may also include generating scripts in operation 1040 for controlling the automation devices.”)
The following limitations not taught by Kiwimagi are taught by Marquez:
an auto-configurator configured to build a digital twin of the BMS using the combined commissioning data; (Marquez [0165]-[0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez . The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the guided workflow application is configured to provide a commissioning workflow based on the plan from the system configuration tool. (Kiwimagi [0017], “the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system … Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez . The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the plan comprises control drawings, (Kiwimagi [0039], “Draw sub-module 224 may provide drawing tools. In an exemplary implementation, draw module includes drawing tools which allow a designer or other user to "trace" over a picture of the layout.”) (Kiwimagi [0040], “Device placement sub-module 226 may be implemented to populate an electronic layout with automation devices.”) The two configuration application submodules together teach control drawings.
point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models. (Kiwimagi [0017], “Also in exemplary implementations, the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez . The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the auto-configurator is further configured to adjust the digital twin based on historical operating data from the building management system relating to actual equipment operations (Kiwimagi [0018], “The configuration application also provides error reporting and allows changes to be made in real-time.”). Given 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, corresponding structure of the “auto-configurator” is found in paragraph [0314], and specifies using information from the “performance verification tool”, which is being interpreted as the “historical operating data” of claim 4.
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the smart building features comprises active setpoint management configured to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions associated with the building management system. (Marquez [0174], “In some embodiments, control logic communicates with window control intelligence, a BMS, and/or a security system. For example, a BMS may configure all windows to their tinted state in order to save cooling costs in the event of a power outage.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez . The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Marquez teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the enterprise manager is further configured to enhance the digital twin based on service and warranty data. (Marquez [0206], “a target device present in a real facility may have a corresponding virtual graphic representation in the digital twin. The digital twin may include corresponding data records for the target device with unique identifying information (e.g., ID code or serial number, MAC address, and/or location) and generic information (type of device, manufacturer, and any other device characteristics, feature and/or attribute, e.g., as disclosed herein). By linking the identification code, location of target device, and the digital twin, functions such as building management, maintenance, servicing, and/or repair can be greatly improved (e.g., in efficiency). Over time, the data records may compile service history and/or (e.g., current) device status, which can be updated into the at least one database comprising the target device (e.g., which can be accessible through the digital twin). Service performed may be updated (e.g., in real-time or after service) into the database (e.g., comprising the status information relating to the device (e.g., that may be accessible through the digital twin). ”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1 taught by Kiwimagi in view of Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the commissioning information comprises two or more of device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, or recorded wiring diagrams. (Kiwimagi [0017], “Also in exemplary implementations, the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”). “recorded point lists”, given broadest reasonable interpretation, is taught by “device labels”.
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations: The method of Claim 8, wherein the BMS design plan comprises control drawings, (Kiwimagi [0039], “Draw sub-module 224 may provide drawing tools.” In an exemplary implementation, draw module includes drawing tools which allow a designer or other user to "trace" over a picture of the layout.”) (Kiwimagi [0040], “Device placement sub-module 226 may be implemented to populate an electronic layout with automation devices.”) The two configuration application submodules together teach control drawings.
point lists, wiring diagrams, and standard equipment models. (Kiwimagi [0017], “Also in exemplary implementations, the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez . The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations: The method of Claim 8, further comprising adjusting the digital twin based on historical operating data from the equipment and the building. (Kiwimagi [0018], “The configuration application also provides error reporting and allows changes to be made in real-time.”). Given 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, corresponding structure of the “auto-configurator” is found in paragraph [0314], and specifies using information from the “performance verification tool”, which is being interpreted as the “historical operating data” of claim 10.
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 8 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations: The method of Claim 8, wherein the actual commissioning data comprises two or more of device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, or recorded wiring diagrams. (Kiwimagi [0017], “Also in exemplary implementations, the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations: The method of Claim 13, comprising providing a guided workflow application configured to enable commissioning of the equipment (Kiwimagi [0017], “the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system … Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”)
The following limitations not taught by Kiwimagi are taught by Marquez:
and collect the actual commissioning data. (Marquez [0165] - [0166], “the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) may be updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time). To correct for changes made during installation that deviate from an interconnect drawing, device (e.g., optically switchable window) information may be obtained from a file containing the device ID (lite ID for a window, for example). [0166] When the digital twin (e.g., an interconnect drawing) has been created, or when the digital twin has been updated to account for a change in installation, a network configuration file may be created or updated. The configuration file may be further updated when commissioning takes place (e.g., in real time), or at a (e.g., designated) time thereafter.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 13 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The method of Claim 13, wherein the actual commissioning data comprises device location data, test values of point verification, recorded control drawings, recorded point lists, and recorded wiring diagrams. (Kiwimagi [0017], “Also in exemplary implementations, the configuration application may automatically generate documentation for the building automation system. For example, the configuration application automatically generates a bill of materials (BOM) for the installer including a detailed equipment list and pricing. Documentation may also include device labels (e.g., identifying functions for a keypad device), wiring diagrams and labels, installation instructions, etc., to improve installation and operation of the building automation system.”) (Kiwimagi [0025], “Automation devices 120 may be provided in building automation zones 120a-b. Building automation zones 130a-b may be defined geographically, such as by room (e.g., the living room) or group of rooms (e.g., the first floor of a house).”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 13 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising adjusting the digital twin by: running a scan of points present in a building management system for the building; (Kiwimagi [0090], “FIG. 11 is a flow diagram illustrating exemplary operations 1100 for automatic error reporting for a building automation system. In operation 1110 an error may be reported. Error reporting may include identifying the site (e.g., the building address or customer name), identifying the automation device experiencing the error (e.g., triac ID #### or lighting ID ####), and identifying the error itself (e.g., "overheating triac" or "burned-out bulb").”)
and updating the digital twin based on a result of the scan. (Kiwimagi [0091, “In operation 1120 a connection may be established with the building automation system. For example, a remote connection may be established from a service center. In operation 1130 the site and device may be displayed (e.g., for a service center representative) and the error may be corrected in operation 1140. For example, the service center representative may remotely disconnect an overheating triac or may notify the building owner to disconnect an overheating triac until a repair can be made.”])
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 13 taught by Marquez, Kiwimagi teaches the following limitations:
The method of Claim 13, further comprising controlling equipment serving the building using the digital twin. (Kiwimagi [0088], “Commissioning the house may also include generating scripts in operation 1040 for controlling the automation devices.”)
Kiwimagi and Marquez are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: constructing digital twins of building systems for commissioning devices in buildings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiwimagi with the teachings of Marquez. The motivation/suggestion would be that Marquez suggests coupling the disclosed system with building automation and management (Marquez [0014], “the digital twin may be utilized for building automation, analysis, customer service, customer management, sales, marketing, and/or asset lifecycle management. The digital twin may be utilized for control of various devices in the facility and/or of an environment of the facility (e.g., lighting system, security system, safety system, heating, air conditioning, and/or ventilation (e.g., HVAC system). The digital twin may be operatively coupled to a building management system (BMS)”) while Kiwimagi is directed to building automation (Kiwimagi Summary, “Implementations described and claimed herein include systems and methods of configuring a building automation system.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Florain (DE 102018119388 A1, 2018) discloses a system for commissioning and maintaining a building automation system.
Guthrie et al. (US 20190384243 A1, 2019) discloses a system for assessing a building management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY GOLD whose telephone number is (571)270-7171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00pm) ET.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/HENRY JOYNER GOLD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights