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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-20 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
The IDS provided by applicant included prior art believed to be relevant for a rejection against the claims. The rejections are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singhal et al1 [Singhal] PGPUB 2008/0231437.
Referring to claim 1, Singhal teaches the method of automatically configuring source-load relationships in building systems, comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors coupled to memory, a first control device of a plurality of control devices of a building, the first control device configured to control at least one physical parameter of a space of the building [0026, 0029];
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first building device of a plurality of building devices of the building, the first building device configured to measure the at least one physical parameter within the building [0026, 0029];
determining, by the one or more processors, that a relationship between the first control device and the first building device is undefined [0029-0030]; and
responsive to determining that the relationship between the first control device and the first building device is undefined, generating, by the one or more processors, the relationship between the first control device and the first building device based on one or more correlations determined based on data provided by the plurality of control devices and sensor data captured by the plurality of building devices, the one or more correlations comprising a variance inflation factor or a cross correlation [0029-0030, 0032, 0067].
In summary, Singhal teaches a building automation system which includes controllers, actuators and sensors and is able to determine incorrect sensor-actuator pairings (i.e., the correct pairings are undefined). In response, correlating the correct pairings by performing tests, the correlations comprising cross correlations.
Referring to claim 2, Singhal teaches calculating the cross-correlation at different lags (i.e., time shift) [0050].
Referring to claims 10-11 and 19-20, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Singhal teaches the method and therefore teaches the system and program performing the same.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal as applied to claims 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Uden2 PGPUB 2011/0213502.
Referring to claim 3, while Singhal teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to determine the correlations by iteratively activating or de-activating the first control/building device. Uden teaches determining correlation by iteratively enabling VAV boxes and seeing what sensors correlate to each VAV box [Fig. 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Uden into Singhal because Uden teaches a way of determining correlations between VAV boxes and sensors which is also required in Singhal and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Referring to claims 5-6, Uden teaches an air source controller (i.e., an air handling unit) can determine the correlation between an associated air source and VAV device by monitoring sensor values associated with the VAV boxes that are associated with respective spaces [0029]. In this instance, the examiner is interpreting the VAV boxes and their associated sensors as the claimed VAV device.
Referring to claim 12 and 14-15, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Claim(s) 4, 7-9, 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal and Uden as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, 14-15 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Roosli PGPUB 2019/0020495.
Referring to claim 4, while the Singhal-Uden combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to determine a confidence value and base the correlation on whether the confidence value satisfies a predetermined threshold. Roosli teaches a similar method of determining correlations but further includes determining a confidence level which is compared to a threshold to determine the accuracy of the determination [0081]. Since Roosli teaches that a determined correlation is only a probabilistic indication that a relationship exists, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Singhal-Uden combination to calculate a confidence value for the correlation between the control and building devices and only establish a relationship only when that value satisfies a threshold because it assists in avoiding the risk of correlating the wrong devices as taught by Roosli [0041, 0075, 0081].
Referring to claim 7, Uden teaches that a controllers can be associated with different ducts, each with multiple VAV boxes (i.e., interpreted as including a second building device) [0029].
Referring to claims 8-9, Roosli teaches that a confidence value must satisfy a threshold for the correlation to be deemed valid [0081]. Therefore, if the confidence value is below the threshold, the correlation is not established. If the value meets the threshold, the correlation is established.
Referring to claims 13 and 16-18, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 9/21/26
1 Cited by applicant.
2 Cited by applicant
Prosecution Insights