DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in INDIA on 09/26/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202321064636 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 1 contains shaded black areas, and lines that are not uniformly thick and well defined. See MPEP §608.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (I), and 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, system claims 1-12 are directed to a memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory, and method claims 12-14 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite calculating real-time sustainability score, including acquiring, assessing, evaluating, aggregating and generating steps.
The limitations of acquiring, assessing, evaluating, aggregating and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite acquiring data in real-time from a plurality of sensors and one or more external sources using a data acquisition module 214, wherein the acquiring comprises monitoring, by the plurality of sensors, data pertaining to one or more assets associated with each building of the at least one building; assessing key performance indicators (KPIs) pertaining to the one or more assets based on the data acquired from the plurality of sensors and the one or more external sources using a KPI evaluation module 216; evaluating a sustainability score of each building using a sustainability score evaluation module 218, wherein the sustainability score evaluation module 218 is configured to compare KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets against at least one of a compliance standard, organization energy goals, water goals, emission goals, waste goals, and digital transformation scale; aggregating the sustainability score corresponding to each building to estimate a global sustainability score using an aggregation module 220, wherein the global sustainability score is estimated in real-time based on one or more weights assigned to the KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets of each building; generating a report indicating the sustainability score of each building, global sustainability score of the entity 102 using the reporting module 222.
That is, other than reciting a memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory (in system claims 1-12), the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including business relations, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory. The memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-6 further describe the entity, the one or more assets, the plurality of sensors, the one or more external sources, and the KPIs. Claims 7 and 8 recites a compliance standard, and further describes the weights assigned to the KPIs. Claims 9 and 10 recite additional deriving and displaying steps. Claims 11 and 12 recite additional generating and forecasting steps. Similarly, dependent claims 14-24 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a memory configured to store one or more executable components and a processor operatively coupled to the memory.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0050 of the specification, “The processor 204 may comprise suitable logic, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory 202 to implement various functionalities of the system 200 in accordance with various aspects of the present invention. The processor 204 may be further configured to communicate with multiple modules of the system 200 via the communication module 212.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 20240037471 A1), in view of McDade (US 20210374297 A1).
As per claim 1, Jones et al disclose a system 200 for calculating real-time sustainability score of an entity 102, the entity 102 having at least one building in at least one geographical location (i.e., obtaining building operational data from a plurality of building management systems, providing scores for a plurality of potential sustainable infrastructure projects, ¶ 0018), the system 200 comprising:
a memory 202 configured to store one or more executable components; and a processor 204 operatively coupled to the memory 202, the processor 204 configured to execute the one or more executable components (i.e., Referring now to FIG. 2, a block diagram of a building automation system (BAS) 200 is shown, according to an exemplary embodiment, ¶ 0026), the one or more executable components comprising:
a data acquisition module 214 configured to acquire data in real-time from a plurality of sensors and one or more external sources, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to monitor data pertaining to one or more assets associated with each building of the at least one building (i.e., building subsystem integration layer 220 can receive sensor data and input signals from building subsystems 228 and provide output data and control signals to building subsystems 228, ¶ 0035);
a KPI evaluation module 216 configured to assess key performance indicators (KPIs) pertaining to the one or more assets based on the data acquired from the plurality of sensors and the one or more external sources (i.e., analyzer 408 can identify an energy consumption baseline for the building, identify benchmarking for the building (e.g., compare the baseline of the building to other peer buildings or an industry to determine a benchmark index), determine facility key performance indicators (KPIs), ¶ 0057);
a sustainability score evaluation module 218 configured to evaluate a sustainability score of each building (i.e., Scoring in step 1106 can provide a value (e.g., number, letter grade) for each potential sustainable infrastructure project that represents an overall assessment of the feasibility and benefits of the potential sustainable infrastruction project, ¶ 0119), wherein the sustainability score evaluation module is configured to compare KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets against at least one of a compliance standard, organization energy goals, water goals, emission goals, waste goals, and digital transformation scale (i.e., sustainability tracker 808 can track the progress of the building towards meeting various sustainability goals. The sustainability tracker 808 can, in some embodiments, retrieve operational building data from the data storage 324, energy bills from the data storage 324, receipts of REC purchases from the data storage 324, etc. The sustainability tracker 808 can identify carbon emissions levels for a building at various times in the past and/or at the present, ¶ 0071);
an aggregation module 220 configured to aggregate the sustainability scores corresponding to each building to estimate a global sustainability score (i.e., At step 1104, various data relating to the sustainable infrastructure projects is aggregated, ¶ 0118. Projects which provide the highest benefits at the lowest costs and at the highest rates of success may have the best (e.g., highest) scores, whereas projects with lower benefits, higher costs, and/or more risks may have worse (e.g., lower) scores. Scoring in step 1106 is based on some or all of the data aggregated in step 1104, ¶ 0119); and
a reporting module 222 configured to generate a report indicating the sustainability score of each building, global sustainability score of the entity 102 (i.e., The user portal 802 includes a sustainability reporter 810. The sustainability report generator 804 can generate various reports indicating sustainability information for the building, ¶ 0072).
Jones et al does not disclose wherein the global sustainability score is estimated in real-time based on one or more weights assigned to the KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets of each building.
McDade discloses a system value may be assigned to each building characteristic and each KPI stored at the building database 110. The value associated with each KPI, may be based on the units for a given building attribute, or may be scaled to a unitless system value. The impact of each system value on the overall building quality index score may be weighted (¶ 0029).
Jones et al and McDade are concerned with effective building management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the global sustainability score is estimated in real-time based on one or more weights assigned to the KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets of each building in Jones et al, as seen in McDade, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Jones et al disclose the entity 102 is related to a plurality of categories such as, the plurality of categories comprising at least one of a commercial category an industrial category, a residential category, and a retail-mixed developments category (i.e., The facility data 312 can describe a building facility, e.g., provide a name of the facility or campus, identify a number of buildings in the facility or campus, identify a use of each building, include a name of each building, indicate campus layout, indicate building size, indicate building square footage, indicate campus square footage, indicate geographic location, ¶ 0053).
As per claim 3, Jones et al disclose the one or more assets comprise at least one waste treatment plants, Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS), generators, security systems, transformers, air conditioners, water resources, chiller systems, emission systems, roof top solar systems, Heating, ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), and exhaust systems (i.e., The BMS that serves building 10 includes an HVAC system 100. HVAC system 100 can include HVAC devices (e.g., heaters, chillers, air handling units, pumps, fans, thermal energy storage, etc.) configured to provide heating, cooling, ventilation, or other services for building 10, ¶ 0022).
As per claim 4, Jones et al disclose the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of temperature sensors, relative humidity (RH) sensors, pressure sensors, flow sensors, power sensors, occupancy sensors, motion sensors, water quality sensors, gas sensors, plant growth sensors, internal air quality sensors, and external air quality sensors (i.e., AHU 106 can include various sensors (e.g., temperature sensors, pressure sensors, etc.) configured to measure attributes of the supply airflow, ¶ 0025).
As per claim 5, Jones et al disclose the one or more external sources can be at least one of manual logs, utility bills, government compliances, regulatory policies, government policies, health and safety compliances, meteorological data, air quality data, weather data, any other related applications (i.e., Data can be aggregated from public (e.g., government) sources (e.g., U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, EnergyPlus), utility companies, client relationship management software/databases, ¶ 0118).
As per claim 6, Jones et al disclose the KPIs are assessed based on one or more sustainability factors, the one or more sustainability factors comprising at least one of building performance index (BPI), energy efficiency index (EEI), energy savings, carbon footprint, green power quotient – onsite offsite renewables, water balance – consumption and recycled, waste management and reduce-reuse-recycle practices, air quality, water quality, emission and effluent control, and organization Corporate Socio Responsibility (CSR) plantations health and respective carbon sequestration (i.e., The sustainability goals 314 can be customer goals for their building with respect to energy reduction, carbon creation, carbon footprint, water usage reduction, switching to renewable energy, purchasing a certain number of renewable energy credits, etc., ¶ 0054).
As per claim 7, Jones et al does not disclose a compliance standard is selected from one of IGBC (Indian Green Building Council), ECBC (Energy Conservation Building Code under Bureau of Energy Efficiency), USGBC (United States Green Building Council), BREAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology), SGBC (Singapore Green Building Council), and BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting).
McDade discloses Information stored at the building database 110 may also come from third parties such as contractors, designers, permit offices, utilities, as well as other building standards such as U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®), National Association of Home Builders' ICC 700 National Green Building Standard (NGBS), Energy Star, etc. (¶ 0028).
Jones et al and McDade are concerned with effective building management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a compliance standard is selected from one of IGBC (Indian Green Building Council), ECBC (Energy Conservation Building Code under Bureau of Energy Efficiency), USGBC (United States Green Building Council), BREAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology), SGBC (Singapore Green Building Council), and BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting) in Jones et al, as seen in McDade, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Jones et al does not disclose the weights assigned to the KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets of each building is based on building design efficiency, Site Planning, Water Conservation, Energy Efficiency, Emissions, Waste Management, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovations.
McDade discloses key performance indicators may be numeric metrics associated with observed building characteristics such as construction type, operational cost, natural disaster risk, safety equipment, energy efficiency, etc. A system value may be assigned to each building characteristic and each KPI stored at the building database 110. The value associated with each KPI, may be based on the units for a given building attribute, or may be scaled to a unitless system value. The impact of each system value on the overall building quality index score may be weighted (¶ 0029).
Jones et al and McDade are concerned with effective building management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the weights assigned to the KPIs pertaining to the one or more assets of each building is based on building design efficiency, Site Planning, Water Conservation, Energy Efficiency, Emissions, Waste Management, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovations in Jones et al, as seen in McDade, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Jones et al disclose an insights module configured to derive insights and provide corrective action recommendations, wherein the insights module leverages one or more machine learning (ML) models to derive the insights and optimize the operations (i.e., A neural network or other machine learning classifier can be used to group/classify projects based on such inputs, for example. Historical project data can be used to identify expected savings in energy usage, emissions, etc. and/or expected project costs, ¶ 0125).
As per claim 10, Jones et al disclose the reporting module 222 further comprises a centralized dashboard configured to display sustainability insights and corrective action recommendations from at least one of a ground level of the entity 102, a building level of the entity 102, and a holistic organization level (i.e., Reporting applications 932 may include a web-based reporting application with several graphical user interface (GUI) elements (e.g., widgets, dashboard controls, windows, etc.) for displaying key performance indicators (KPI) or other information to users of a GUI, ¶ 0092).
As per claim 11, Jones et al disclose an audit generation module 224 configured to generate audit reports in real-time based on selected compliance standard(s) for single building, or buildings grouped under a particular region (City, State, Country) or Global Organization Report in a single click (i.e., the analyzer 408 could identify invoice data, perform an audit on utility bill data, and/or perform an analysis on energy rates and/or tariffs for the energy (e.g., environmental penalties for various forms of energy). The analyzer 408 can identify an energy consumption baseline for the building, identify benchmarking for the building (e.g., compare the baseline of the building to other peer buildings or an industry to determine a benchmark index), ¶ 0057).
As per claim 12, Jones et al disclose a forecast module 226 configured to forecast sustainability score of each building and global sustainability score of the entity 102, wherein the forecast module 226 forecasts sustainability score by utilizing the one or more machine learning (ML) models that are trained on sustainability score pattern, historical trends of energy consumption and savings, water consumption and savings, emissions, waste generation and recycled, indoor environment quality, building design, and operational efficiency (i.e., step 1106 includes performing an advanced assessment of compatibility between environmental conditions, utility costs/programs/etc., and building characteristics to influence the scoring. In some embodiments, a neural network or other machine-learning algorithm can be trained to classify (or otherwise rate) sets of environmental conditions, building characteristics, and/or other data as being feasible or unfeasible for certain types of projects, ¶ 0123).
Claims 13-24 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-12, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses building management.
-Li et al (System-level key performance indicators for building performance evaluation) disclose a set of system-level KPIs, which cover four major end-use systems in buildings: lighting, MELs (Miscellaneous Electric Loads, aka plug loads), HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning), and SWH (service water heating).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 January 5, 2026