DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed April 14, 2026.
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 14 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 21-36 are newly added.
Claims 14-17 and 21-36 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22, 29, and 30 are directed towards the alert with respect to an age indication and a working group. The written description support for the alert is considered within paragraphs [29-30], however, there is no specification support for the alert with respect to an age indication or a working group. As such, claims 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for being directed towards new matter.
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 14-17 and 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 14-17 and 21-36 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 14 and 24 are directed towards, “an input for receiving utility usage information regarding utility usage at one or more facilities, and environmental information regarding one or more environmental conditions in or around each of the one or more facilities; determine a meter group for at least one of the one or more facilities from a user selection of two or more meters; apply a […] model to the received utility usage information and the received environmental information to determine a baseline utility usage for a current time period for the meter group; determine, for the current time period, a measure of current usage utility for the meter group based on the received utility usage information; determine whether the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least a threshold amount; issue an alert when the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least the threshold amount; receive an input from a user to control one or more of the devices associated with the meter group to reduce utility usage”. The claims are describing a collection of information, high level analysis (emissions, costs, and usage rolled over time periods), and displaying the results of the collected information (providing a dashboard to display the emission, usage, and cost. This is further provided in terms of displaying a control command to a user that is then selected and acted upon based on the user selection. The claims are directed towards a mental process. A person is able to receive information that is displayed, observe, and provide an input that is acted upon based on the displayed information. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
In terms of step 2(a)(II), the additional elements of the claim are considered with respect to being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 14 and 24 are, “A system for monitoring and controlling utility usage at one or more facilities, wherein each facility includes one or more devices that use a commodity or service provided by a utility, the system comprising; a memory for storing the received utility usage information, the received environmental information, historical information and a definition of a meter group; a controller operatively coupled to the input and the memory, the controller configured to; apply a non-linear model to; and send control commands to control the one or more devices based on the received user input”. The additional elements of the computer aspects (memory, dashboard, and control commands) are described in the originally filed specification figure 1 and paragraphs [20-22 and 33-35]. The additional elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Further, in terms of the mental process consideration, the mental process is merely being applied to a computer environment, but the additional elements are not describing or directed towards a technical improvement. This is further based on the control operations that are based on the user inputs. The control operations are utilizing the mental selection to perform the action. This also includes the consideration that the control operations are an idea of a solution in that there is no specific technical limitation or description for providing the solution and thus is an idea of a solution. As the claim specifically states that the user inputs provides the control operations then the controls are merely tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The consideration of the non-linear model is based on the specification paragraphs [27-29]. The non-linear model is merely a tool to implement the analysis step described above. The non-linear model is not directed towards a specific model or algorithm, but rather a generic modeling technique to apply the inputs and determine an output. As such, the non-linear model is not directed towards a technical improvement. The claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application as the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
In terms of step 2(b), the additional elements of the claim are considered with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 14 and 24 are, “A system for monitoring and controlling utility usage at one or more facilities, wherein each facility includes one or more devices that use a commodity or service provided by a utility, the system comprising; a memory for storing the received utility usage information, the received environmental information, historical information and a definition of a meter group; a controller operatively coupled to the input and the memory, the controller configured to; apply a non-linear model to; and send control commands to control the one or more devices based on the received user input”. The additional elements of the computer aspects (memory, dashboard, and control commands) are described in the originally filed specification figure 1 and paragraphs [20-22 and 33-35]. The additional elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Further, in terms of the mental process consideration, the mental process is merely being applied to a computer environment, but the additional elements are not describing or directed towards a technical improvement. This is further based on the control operations that are based on the user inputs. The control operations are utilizing the mental selection to perform the action. This also includes the consideration that the control operations are an idea of a solution in that there is no specific technical limitation or description for providing the solution and thus is an idea of a solution. As the claim specifically states that the user inputs provides the control operations then the controls are merely tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The consideration of the non-linear model is based on the specification paragraphs [27-29]. The non-linear model is merely a tool to implement the analysis step described above. The non-linear model is not directed towards a specific model or algorithm, but rather a generic modeling technique to apply the inputs and determine an output. As such, the non-linear model is not directed towards a technical improvement. The claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea as the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 16-17 and 21-23 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are further directed towards the collection of information (utility usage), the high level analysis (providing user input threshold values), and the display of information (the alert and rendering of the dashboard). The claims are merely describing the collection, analysis, and display for the utility usage dashboard that is considered under the abstract idea. The additional elements are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 25-36 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are further directed towards the collection of information (utility information sources and usage, and meter group for common area), the high level analysis (providing user input threshold values and baseline values), and the display of information (the alert and rendering of the dashboard). The claims are merely describing the collection, analysis, and display for the utility usage dashboard that is considered under the abstract idea. The additional elements are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-17 and 21-36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14-17 and 21-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al [8,818,758], hereafter Singh, in view of Drees et al [2022/0092500], hereafter Drees.
Regarding claim 14, Singh discloses a method for monitoring and controlling utility usage at one or more facilities, wherein each facility includes one or more devices that use a commodity or service provided by a utility, the method comprising: receiving utility usage information regarding utility usage at one or more facilities (Fig 1, 2, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays.);
receiving environmental information regarding one or more environmental conditions in or around each of the one or more of the facilities (Fig 1, 2, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The display provides per-building information and a dashboard for multiple buildings and environmental information (interpreted through the CO2 emissions display).);
determining a meter group for at least one of the one or more facilities from a user selection of two or more meters (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C24:10 to C25:6; Singh discloses a meter group for one or more buildings that is based on one or more (interpreted as two or more) utility meters (shown through electricity, water, and gas).);
determining, for the current time period a measure of current utility usage for the meter group based on the received utility usage information; determining whether the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least a threshold amount (Fig 1 and C8:9-55; Singh discloses a mapping of building information using utility, cost, and other information and the information map is provided on a grid. Further, Singh discloses that the display can be used to depict location with a map overlay.);
Singh discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Singh does not specifically teach non-linear modeling or alerts based on utility aspects;
applying a non-linear model to the received utility usage information and the received environmental information to determine a baseline utility usage for a current time period for the meter group (Paragraphs [169-173]; Drees teaches a similar system in terms of utility calculations and building usage with specific modeling that includes nonlinear optimization utilized in the utility calculations. Within the combination, Singh provides linear modeling and Drees is substituting the specific nonlinear modeling in a similar utility calculation system to solve optimization problem.);
issuing an alert when the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least the threshold amount (Paragraphs [94-102]; Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides utility calculations and determinations that provide alerts based on detected faults that are compared with model-predicted outputs (interpreted as threshold). This provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics.);
receiving an input from a user to control one or more devices associated with the meter group to reduce utility usage; and sending control commands to control the one or more devices associated with the meter group based on the received user input (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The rules and equipment for the control elements are shown in [97] to be controlled by user input.).
Singh discloses an emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities, however, Singh does not specifically disclose a nonlinear analysis and alert based on threshold elements for the utility usage.
Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities of Singh the ability to include a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults of Drees since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as the alerts provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics [Drees 102].
Regarding claim 15, Singh further discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the meter group comprises a common area meter group (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C24:65 to C25:12; Singh discloses that the meter includes common area utility information.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 14,
Drees further teaches wherein the threshold amount is user selectable (Paragraphs [142-144 and 239]; Drees teaches the controller and other aspects are user-defined and selected.).
Singh discloses an emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities, however, Singh does not specifically disclose user inputs to control commands based on the alerts.
Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides analysis for generating alerts on detected faults and user commands for building systems based on the faults/alerts.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities of Singh the ability to include a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides analysis for generating alerts on detected faults and user commands for building systems based on the faults/alerts as taught by Drees since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as the alerts provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics [Drees 102].
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 14,
Singh discloses wherein the measure of current utility usage comprises one or more of carbon emission, energy usage and energy cost (Fig 2 and C8:32 to C9:44; Singh discloses emission, energy, and cost.).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 14,
Drees further teaches wherein the alert includes a suggested action (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The suggested action is interpreted through the schedule aspect and control to attempt repair [102-103].).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 14,
Drees further discloses wherein the alert is associated with a working group and includes an age indication (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The “working group and age indication” is interpreted through combination of Singh providing the year built and other data within the utility usage data [C2:6-31 and C10:18-45].).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 14,
Singh discloses further comprising rendering a dashboard for display, wherein the dashboard displays the measure of current utility usage for the current time period relative to utility usage over a previous time period (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The display provides per-building information and a dashboard for multiple buildings and timeline information.).
Regarding claim 24, Singh discloses a system for monitoring and controlling utility usage at one or more facilities, wherein each facility includes one or more devices that use a commodity or service provided by a utility, the system comprising (Fig 1, 2, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays.):
an input for receiving utility usage information regarding utility usage at one or more facilities, and environmental information regarding one or more environmental conditions in or around each of the one or more facilities (Fig 1, 2, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The display provides per-building information and a dashboard for multiple buildings and environmental information (interpreted through the CO2 emissions display).);
a memory for storing the received utility usage information, the received environmental information, historical information and a definition of a meter group; a controller operatively coupled to the input and the memory, the controller configured to (Fig 12 and C6:55 to C7:20 and C21:45 to C22:50; Singh discloses the database storage and communication between inputting and providing the information within the system.):
determine a meter group for at least one of the one or more facilities from a user selection of two or more meters (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C24:10 to C25:6; Singh discloses a meter group for one or more buildings that is based on one or more (interpreted as two or more) utility meters (shown through electricity, water, and gas).);
determine, for the current time period, a measure of current usage utility for the meter group based on the received utility usage information (Fig 1 and C8:9-55; Singh discloses a mapping of building information using utility, cost, and other information and the information map is provided on a grid. Further, Singh discloses that the display can be used to depict location with a map overlay.);
Singh discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Singh does not specifically teach non-linear modeling or alerts based on utility aspects;
apply a non-linear model to the received utility usage information and the received environmental information to determine a baseline utility usage for a current time period for the meter group (Paragraphs [169-173]; Drees teaches a similar system in terms of utility calculations and building usage with specific modeling that includes nonlinear optimization utilized in the utility calculations. Within the combination, Singh provides linear modeling and Drees is substituting the specific nonlinear modeling in a similar utility calculation system to solve optimization problem.);
determine whether the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least a threshold amount; issue an alert when the measure of current utility usage for the meter group exceeds the baseline utility usage for the meter group by at least the threshold amount (Paragraphs [94-102]; Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides utility calculations and determinations that provide alerts based on detected faults that are compared with model-predicted outputs (interpreted as threshold). This provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics.);
receive an input from a user to control one or more of the devices associated with the meter group to reduce utility usage; and send control commands to control the one or more devices based on the received user input (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The rules and equipment for the control elements are shown in [97] to be controlled by user input.).
Singh discloses an emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities, however, Singh does not specifically disclose a nonlinear analysis and alert based on threshold elements for the utility usage.
Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities of Singh the ability to include a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults of Drees since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as the alerts provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics [Drees 102].
Regarding claim 25, Singh further discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the meter group comprises a common area meter group (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C24:65 to C25:12; Singh discloses that the meter includes common area utility information.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 24,
Drees further teaches wherein the threshold amount is use-selectable (Paragraphs [142-144 and 239]; Drees teaches the controller and other aspects are user-defined and selected.).
Singh discloses an emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities, however, Singh does not specifically disclose user inputs to control commands based on the alerts.
Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides analysis for generating alerts on detected faults and user commands for building systems based on the faults/alerts.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities of Singh the ability to include a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides analysis for generating alerts on detected faults and user commands for building systems based on the faults/alerts as taught by Drees since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as the alerts provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics [Drees 102].
Regarding claim 27, Singh further discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the measure of current utility usage comprises one or more of carbon emission, energy usage, and energy cost (Fig 2 and C8:32 to C9:44; Singh discloses emission, energy, and cost.).
Regarding claim 28, Drees further teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the alert includes a suggested action (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The suggested action is interpreted through the schedule aspect and control to attempt repair [102-103].).
Regarding claim 29, Drees further teaches the system of claim 28, wherein the alert is associated with a working group (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The “working group and age indication” is interpreted through combination of Singh providing the year built and other data within the utility usage data [C2:6-31 and C10:18-45].).
Regarding claim 30, Drees further teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the alert includes an age indication (Paragraphs [103-104]; Drees teaches an alert and providing control elements for the building automation. The “working group and age indication” is interpreted through combination of Singh providing the year built and other data within the utility usage data [C2:6-31 and C10:18-45].).
Regarding claim 31, Singh further discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the controller is configured to render a dashboard for display on a display (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The display provides per-building information and a dashboard for multiple buildings and timeline information.).
Regarding claim 32, Singh further discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the dashboard displays the measure of current utility usage for the current time period relative to utility usage over a previous time period (Fig 1, 2, 5, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The display provides per-building information and a dashboard for multiple buildings and time period information.).
Regarding claim 33, Singh further discloses the system of claim 24, wherein utility usage information for a particular facility is received from a plurality of sources (Fig 1, 2, 4, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The information is received from a plurality of utility sources (electricity, water, gas, etc).).
Regarding claim 34, Singh further discloses the system of claim 33, wherein the controller is configured to create a virtual meter that aggregates utility usage amounts from selected ones of the plurality of sources for the particular facility (Fig 1, 2, 4, and C6:26 to C7:31; Singh discloses the dashboard system that provides information from utility and other information regarding services provided to a building and historical aspects to provide a dashboard of utility/emission/cost displays. The virtual meter is based on the dashboard shown in Figure 2 that provides specific building utility data information and the plurality is based on the different sources of utility information that is fed into the system for display.).
Regarding claim 35, Singh further discloses the system of claim 34, wherein the selected ones of the plurality of sources are selected via a user input (FIG 1, 2, 3, and C10:41 to C11:43; Singh discloses and provides a dashboard to compare and display the utility and other data for a plurality of facilities (specific in Fig 3). In terms of the plurality of sources, the utility data is gathered and collected {C7:32-47 and C8:32-53}.).
Regarding claim 36, Drees further teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the baseline utility usage for the current time period is determined based at least in part on the historical information (Paragraphs [169-173]; Drees teaches a similar system in terms of utility calculations and building usage with specific modeling that includes nonlinear optimization utilized in the utility calculations. Within the combination, Singh provides linear modeling and Drees is substituting the specific nonlinear modeling in a similar utility calculation system to solve optimization problem.).
Singh discloses an emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities, however, Singh does not specifically disclose a nonlinear analysis and alert based on threshold elements for the utility usage.
Drees teaches a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emission and utility dashboard system to collect and provide information regarding a plurality of facilities of Singh the ability to include a similar building utility/energy usage system that specifically provides nonlinear analysis for generating alerts on detected faults of Drees since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable as the alerts provides users attempts to repair or work around the fault based on the diagnostics [Drees 102].
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed April 14, 2026 on pages 6 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are describing a collection of information, high level analysis, and display of the results. This is further based on a person is providing user-selectable threshold values for the analysis and a user, based on the output, is providing user selections for control commands for the devices. A person is providing the inputs for the analysis, observing the outputs, and providing control commands based on the output. The person is mentally opining and controlling the elements that consider the claimed invention as within the abstract idea of mental process. The additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. As such, the additional elements are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As such, claims 14-17 and 21-26 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed April 14, 2026 on pages 6-8 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is not taught by the cited prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Previously cited and considered prior art Singh and Drees teach the amended and newly added claim limitations after further search and consideration. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, claims 14-17 and 21-26 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Graham et al [2022/0407598] (crowdsource building control automation based on user input and feedback);
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights