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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending. They comprising of 2 groups:
(1) Method1: 1-9, and
(2) System1: 10-18.
All appear to have similar scope and will be examined together.
As of 03/13/26, independent method claim 1 is as followed:
1.(Currently Amended) A construction method for asset value models in a digital twin engine, comprising the following steps:
step 1. measuring a level of business importance based on a business model of building energy consumption assets, and constructing a first asset value model according to the measured level of the business importance, wherein the building energy consumption assets include energy consumption equipment used in a building;
step 2. establishing a correlation between the building energy consumption assets and productivity, and constructing a second asset value model according to productivity loss caused by the building energy consumption assets, wherein analyzing of importance of the asset is realized by the second asset value model through the established correlation; and
step 3. calculating an energy use efficiency of the building according to decision variable, wherein the decision variable includes at least one of weather conditions, temperature, humidity, light conditions,
predicting a degradation index of the assets through the energy use efficiency, the first asset value model and the second asset value model, and
generating a maintenance solution of the assets;
wherein generating the maintenance solution comprises: establishing a transformation matrix between the building energy consumption assets to acquire a change relationship of an asset loss of other assets realized after a maintenance of a single asset; and determining the maintenance solution based on the transformation matrix between the building energy consumption assets and the degradation index of the assets,
wherein the maintenance solution of the assets is implemented by adjust or repair the building energy consumption assets to recover the asset loss.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-18:
Claim category:
1) Method1 (process): 1-9, and
2) System1 (machine): 10-18.
Analysis of Step 1:
Claims 1-9, are directed to a method for constructing an asset value model in a digital twin system for evaluating energy use efficiency of a building and generating a maintenance solution. (Step 1:Yes).
Claims 10-18, are directed to a system for constructing an asset value model in a digital twin system for evaluating energy use efficiency of a building and generating a maintenance solution. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-18 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis of Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea for determining energy use efficiency of a building using different models in a digital twin and generating a maintenance solution.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for evaluating (predicting) energy use efficiency using a model and generating a maintenance solution. Alternatively, the claim also deals with constructing a model for determining mathematical relationship between various items for determining energy use efficiency of a building and generating a maintenance solution. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
B. Analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for determining energy use efficiency of a building using different models in a digital twin and generating a maintenance solution.
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1a] measuring a level of business importance. Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA)
[1b] constructing a …1st model. Mental/analysis/model or math. relationship.
[2a] establishing a correlation between …. Mental/analysis/model or math. relationship.
[2b] constructing a second … 2nd model. Mental/analysis/model or math. relationship.
[3a] calculating a value (energy use efficiency). Mathematical relationship/algorithm.
[3b] predicting a degradation value (index)… Mathematical relationship/algorithm.
[3c] generating a maintenance solution (info.) of assets. Data output, IE-SA.
[3c1] establish a transformation matrix … Mental/analysis/model.
[3c2] determine maintenance solution (data). Mental/analysis/model.
[3c3] solution is implemented by adjust/repair. IE-SA.
As shown above, steps [1], [3c], [3c3] are mere data gathering, data generation, and transmit data which are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [1b], [2a], [2b], [3a], [3b], [3c1], [3c2] are analysis and models for analyzing an asset for its energy consumption, production, and loss constructing an asset and generating a maintenance solution for the assets. The additional computer elements of a digital twin engine in the preamble, appears to be generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. It merely uses a model for determining energy use efficiency of a building using different models and generating a maintenance solution. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical relationships/ formulas) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Analysis of Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [step 1]-[step 3] cited above.
As shown above, steps [1], [3c], [3c3] are mere data gathering, data generation, and transmit data which are insignificant extra-solution activities (IESA).
Steps [1b], [2a], [2b], [3a], [3b], [3c1], [3c2] are analysis and models for analyzing an asset for its energy consumption, production, and loss constructing an asset and generating a maintenance solution for the assets. The additional computer elements of a digital twin engine in the preamble, appears to be generic computer devices performing generic computer functions.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. It merely uses a model for determining energy use efficiency of a building using different models and generating a maintenance solution. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical relationships/ formulas) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements as shown in steps [1]-[3] when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) of determining energy use efficiency of a building using different models and generating a maintenance solution. Mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions, collecting data, analyzing data using various models, and displaying result (data) which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification [0059-0063] and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with further detail of the asset value model of the building energy consumption assets, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 / 2 above), which deals with further detail of the asset value model of the business importance, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 3 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 / 3 above), which deals with further detail of the correlation of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 4 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 / 4 above), which deals with further detail of the optimal decision variables of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 / 5 above), which deals with further detail of the energy use efficiency of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 6 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 / 6 above), which deals with further detail of the independent characteristic variables of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 / 7 above), which deals with further detail of the maintenance solution of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 8 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 9 (part of 1 / 7 above), which deals with further detail of the maintenance solution of the asset value model, this further limits the abstract idea of the prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 9 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Relevant Prior Art
1) CN 114.444.858 discloses an intelligent building energy-saving management method and system based on digital twinning technology, but does not discloses the specific steps, [1]-[3] as shown above.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2) CN 114.781.925 discloses an intelligent building energy-saving management method and system based on digital twinning technology, but does not discloses the specific steps, [1]-[3] as shown above.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 have been fully considered and the results are as followed:
112 (b) Rejections: withdrawn due to amendment.
101 Rejections:
Applicant’s comment that the current independent claims are similar to claim 3 of example 47 of USPTO Guidance Update on SME is not persuasive. Claim 3 deals with a method of using ANN to detect malicious computer network packets in a computer network system comprising steps (a)-(f) and step (f) is “blocking future traffic from the source address.” Step (f) is a positive citation of a step to stop the malicious computer network packets. The claimed invention is a method for constructing an asset value model in a digital twin system for evaluating energy use efficiency of a building and generating a maintenance solution.
Applicant’s comment on pages 13-14 that the current claims has similar effect of “enhance security” to that of Example 47, claim 3, is not persuasive for the same reason set forth above.
Applicant’s comment on page 14 that the current claims has similar effect of “enhance security” to that of Example 47, claim 3, because the “maintenance solution” is implemented to reduce asset loss by adjust or repair is not persuasive because the implementation is so broad and general and is considered as insignificant extra solution activity, IE-SA. The solution is not specific as shown in step (f), claim 3, of Example 47.
Conclusion
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 6:30AM-4:30PM 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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights