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 .
Detailed Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/25 has been entered.
In amendments dated 12/22/25, Applicant amended claims 21, 25, 31, 34, and 39, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 21, 34, and 39 each recites generating a plurality of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), the plurality of DAGs corresponding to the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files, wherein the plurality of DAGs include a plurality of blocks representing the plurality of timeseries processing operations, wherein a first DAG of the plurality of DAGs corresponding to a first timeseries processing workflow file of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files defines a fault detection rule; applying the adjustment to at least one object in the first timeseries processing workflow file that corresponds to the first DAG; generating a virtual data point for a timeseries of fault detections for a fault condition where sensor data is unavailable to detect the fault condition; and processing raw data timeseries of the measurable data points upon receiving the raw data timeseries from a data source, wherein the raw data timeseries is processed using the first timeseries processing workflow file to generate the timeseries of the virtual data point including the timeseries of fault detections made according to the fault detection rule. Generating a plurality of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), applying an adjustment to a block of a DAG, generating a virtual data point, and processing data timeseries are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receive a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that process a plurality of raw data timeseries of measurable data points, the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files comprising a plurality of objects, wherein the plurality of objects represent a plurality of timeseries processing operations; and receive, from a user via the graphical user interface, a user input comprising an adjustment to at least one block of the plurality of blocks of the first DAG of the plurality of DAG, which are each input steps and insignificant extra-solution activity, and cause a user device to display a graphical user interface comprising the plurality of DAGs, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 21 recites one or more processors and one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon which are generic components of a computer. Claim 39 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media, which are also generic components of a computer. Examiner notes Applicant’s discussion of specification paragraph 0181 in Applicant’s Remarks of a virtual data point as “a type of calculated data point derived from one or more actual data points” and that “virtual data points can be used as substitutes for actual sensor data when the sensor data desired for a particular application does not exist, but can be calculated from one or more actual data points.” Per his Responses below, Examiner disagrees that virtual data points represent a unique data structure or that the broad reciting of generating virtual data points recites a practical application. The claim steps do not recite an improvement made in any technology or to the function of a computer in these paragraphs as required MPEP 2106.04(d) and Examiner does not believe the claims recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claim limitations as a whole, each of the receiving steps and the display step amount to sending or receiving data over a network (specification paragraphs 0102, 0106, figures 3 and 4) which are routine and conventional activities per list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more processors, one or more memory devices, and one or more non-transitory computer readable media are still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 22 and 35 each recites wherein the fault detection rule is a user defined fault rule that indicates whether one or more values of raw data samples representing a physical building condition are fault values (a fault detection rule is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to process the raw data timeseries using the first timeseries processing workflow to generate one or more fault timeseries, the one or more fault timeseries being generated in response to a determination, based on the user defined fault rule, that the one or more values of the raw data samples representing the physical building condition are the fault values (determining is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 23 and 36 each recites optimize the first timeseries processing workflow by combining two or more individual timeseries processing operations of the first timeseries processing workflow into a combined timeseries processing operation (combining data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claims 24 and 37 each recites optimize the timeseries processing workflows by: identifying multiple timeseries processing workflow files of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that require one or more shared input timeseries (identifying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and combining the identified timeseries processing workflows into a single timeseries processing workflow (combining data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 25 recites wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to generate the timeseries prior to a request for the timeseries (generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 26, 38, and 40 each recites wherein the blocks comprise: one or more input blocks representing one or more input timeseries to which a corresponding workflow applies; one or more functional blocks representing the sequences of timeseries processing operations in the corresponding workflow; and one or more output blocks representing one or more derived data timeseries generated by applying the sequences of timeseries processing operations to the one or more input timeseries (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 27 recites receive the user input, the user input comprising the adjustment to at least one of the one or more input blocks, the one or more functional blocks, or the one or more output blocks (receiving data across a network is routine and conventional per list in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); determine a change to the corresponding workflow based on the user input (determining is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and automatically apply the change to the corresponding workflow in response to receiving the user input (applying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 28 recites wherein the first timeseries processing workflow comprises: an indication of one or more input timeseries to which the first timeseries processing workflow applies (an indication is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); a particular sequence of timeseries processing operations (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and an indication of one or more derived data timeseries generated by applying the particular sequence of timeseries processing operations to the one or more input timeseries (an indication is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 29 recites a first sequence of timeseries processing operations is a dynamically defined sequence of timeseries processing operations (timeseries operations are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and a second sequence of timeseries processing operations is a predefined sequence of timeseries processing operations (timeseries operations are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 30 recites wherein the one or more input timeseries comprise at least one of: the raw data timeseries; or the one or more derived data timeseries (timeseries are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 31 recites detect a change in the raw data timeseries or the derived data timeseries (detecting is determining and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and process a changed data timeseries in response to detecting the change (processing data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 32 recites wherein processing the changed data timeseries in response to detecting the change comprises: identifying one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflows that apply to the changed data timeseries (identifying is determining and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); identifying any other timeseries indicated as required inputs to the identified one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflows (identifying is determining and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and processing the changed data timeseries, the other timeseries indicated as required inputs, and the identified one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that apply to the changed data timeseries (processing data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 33 recites receive a plurality of derived data samples generated by processing the changed data timeseries; and generate one or more particular derived data sample timeseries comprising the plurality of the derived data samples.
Obviousness Type Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-28, 30-34, 36, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,755,604 in view of Spivey et al (US 20140325292), hereafter Spivey. With respect to independent claims 21, 34, and 39, the ‘604 patent teaches receive a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that process a plurality of raw data timeseries of measurable data points, the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files comprising a plurality of objects, wherein the plurality of objects represent a plurality of timeseries processing operations; generate a plurality of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), the plurality of DAGs corresponding to the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files, wherein the plurality of DAGs include a plurality of blocks representing the plurality of timeseries processing operations, wherein a first DAG of the plurality of DAGs corresponding to a first timeseries processing workflow file of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files defines a fault detection rule; cause a user device to display a graphical user interface comprising the plurality of DAGs; receive, from a user via the graphical user interface, a user input comprising an adjustment to at least one block of the plurality of blocks of the first DAG of the plurality of DAG; apply the adjustment to at least one object in the first timeseries processing workflow file that corresponds to the first DAG; and process raw data timeseries of the measurable data points upon receiving the raw data timeseries from a data source, wherein the raw data timeseries is processed using the first timeseries processing workflow file to generate the timeseries of the virtual data point including the timeseries of fault detections made according to the fault detection rule. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0073 describes a virtual data timeseries as a derived timeseries data.
The ‘604 patent does not teach generate a virtual data point for a timeseries of fault detections for a fault condition where sensor data is unavailable to detect the fault condition. Spivey teaches this with an example showing where sensor data is unavailable (figure 6 605) and a virtual data point is calculated by modeling the temperature change across the fan 603 along with its airflow calculated using fan speed and estimating the temperature at a synthesized datapoint 605 at the discharge from the fan 603 and prior to the heating coil 604. As Spivey explains, "this virtual point 605 is used to augment the selection of fault detection algorithms that might otherwise be impossible without the required measuring point 605, in order to detect a faulty valve that is leaking when it is closed [a fault condition]. [emphasis added]" (paragraph 0073, figure 6). It would have been obvious to have combined this function of generating a virtual data point to detect a fault condition in Spivey with the techniques of the ‘604 patent to enable a workaround or a failover in a system when actual data is unavailable to detect a possible failure in the system.
Instant application claim
‘604 patent claim + Spivey
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
1
27
1
28
6
30
8
31
9
32
10
33
11
34
12
36
13
39
17, 19
40
18
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding obviousness type double patenting of claims 21-28, 30-34, 36, and 39-40 over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 17-19 of US Patent 11,762,604, Examiner notes Applicant stating in Remarks page 19 that Applicant requests said rejections be held in abeyance. Because of the amendments Examiner conducted a search of the prior art and found Spivey which teaches the amended virtual data point where sensor data is unavailable and thus maintains these rejections above along with Spivey as a secondary reference. Regarding Examiner’s comments in his Advisory Action on the amendments presented in Applicant’s 10/22/25 after-final filing, Applicant’s present amendments are satisfactory. Regarding rejections of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 13-15 of his Remarks Applicant discussing Step 2A Prong One, asserts “claim 21 recites similar limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, such as, 'receive a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that process a plurality of raw data timeseries of measurable data points,' 'generate a virtual data point for a timeseries of fault detections for a fault condition where sensor data is unavailable to detect the fault condition,' and 'process raw data timeseries of the measurable data points upon receiving the raw data timeseries from a data source, wherein the raw data timeseries is processed using the first timeseries processing workflow file to generate the timeseries of the virtual data point including the timeseries of fault detections made according to the fault detection rule.'" Examiner notes the “receiving” limitation is identified as an additional element in the rejections above. The “generate” and “process” limitations are both recited broadly and without inventive details and each one uses a generic computer as a tool. Examiner also notes 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states "the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation." The broadest reasonable interpretation of generating data such as a virtual data point and processing timeseries data includes using a pen and paper to accomplish such actions, hence Examiner identified them as mental processes.
Applicant further asserts on page 15 and also on page 17 that a virtual data point is a computer data structure. Examiner disagrees and points to specification paragraph 0181 excerpted by Applicant that states “a virtual data point is a type of calculated data point derived from one or more actual data points.” It is not a new data structure but, as recited, it is a storage location for a calculated value and presents and requires no new functionality in a computer. Furthermore, per Applicant’s Remarks pages 15-16 on Step 2A Prong Two, Examiner does not see how generating a virtual data point per the specification’s support, is an improvement in the function of a computer or to a field of technology. Generating a virtual data point is broadly recited without inventive details that might show such an improvement. Furthermore, Examiner showed with Spivey paragraph 0073 and figure 6 above that generating a virtual data point when sensors are not available, if that is a problem in a technology, is a circumstance that has been encountered and addressed before. Thus Examiner does not believe the claims recite a practical application. On pages 17-19 Applicant discusses Step 2B and asserts “Claim 21 is amended to recite additional elements, including, ‘receive a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that process a plurality of raw data timeseries of measurable data points,’ ‘generate a virtual data point for a timeseries of fault detections for a fault condition where sensor data is unavailable to detect the fault condition,’ and ‘process raw data timeseries of the measurable data points upon receiving the raw data timeseries from a data source, wherein the raw data timeseries is processed using the first timeseries processing workflow file to generate the timeseries of the virtual data point including the timeseries of fault detections made according to the fault detection rule.’” Examiner explained above that only the “receive” limitation is an additional element, and, the “receive user input” and “displaying a graphical user interface” limitations are also additional elements recited in the claim. Examiner showed in the rejections above that each of these are recited broadly and are routine and conventional functions of a computer per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. They are each nominal activities to the inventive entity described in the mental process limitations and Examiner does not believe they contribute to significantly more than said mental processes.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 2/20/26
Prosecution Insights