Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
2. Julie Shanker is no longer continuing prosecution on application number 18/612,191. It has been transferred to Examiner Jessica Lemieux.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on March 21st, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on July 7th, 2025. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Priority
4. Application 18/612,191was filed on March 21st, 2024 which has a provisional application 63/472,186 filed on June 9th, 2023.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant argues the amended claims are patent eligible
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered and are responded to herein. In the remarks, Applicant specifically addresses the following:
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because “the human mind cannot practically perform the subsequent operations of causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to temporarily cease or reduce operation… causing one or more pieces of equipment associated with the portion of the building to reduce the amount of airflow to the portion of the building… or causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to increase or decrease a temperature of the portion of the building,” as recited in the amended claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea identified is not the physical operation of equipment, but rather the recited steps of processing emission information, determining emission impacts, generating recommendations, simulating implementation timing and adjusting recommendations. These steps recite evaluation, analysis, and decision-making processes that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and therefore fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitation of transmitting control signals that cause building equipment to change operation does not alter the character of these recited steps because that limitation merely applies the results of the analysis. Thus the claim recites a mental process. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior, and instead are directed to a system that operates to implement a recommendation by causing one or more pieces of building equipment to perform various actions based on what the recommendation is. More specifically the amended claim is “defining the operation of a system which implements recommendations by causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to temporarily cease or reduce operation… causing one or more pieces of equipment associated with the portion of the building to reduce the amount of airflow to the portion of the building… or causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to increase or decrease a temperature of the portion of the building,” as recited in the amended claims.
This argument is not persuasive. The claim recites processing emissions data, generating recommendations to reduce emissions, and determining when such recommendations should be implemented. These limitations describe planning and decision-making steps for managing operational actions in response to environmental conditions. Such activity constitutes the type of evaluative decision-making for directing actions, which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons discussed above, the amended claims recites abstract subject matter in the form of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity and therefore recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
6.. Applicant argues that causing building equipment to perform actions provides a practical application. This argument is not persuasive. The recited equipment operations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not recite any specific technological mechanism for controlling building equipment or any improvement to building technology. Instead, the equipment is invoked at a functional level as a tool for carrying out the results of the abstract analysis. The claim merely determines recommendations and timing and then transmits instructions to implement those recommendations. Such use of generic equipment to apply the results of an abstract idea does not constitute integration into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular control algorithm, control architecture, sensor configuration, or technical improvement to building equipment operation. Rather, it recites desired results (e.g. reducing airflow, adjusting temperature, or ceasing operation) without specifying how those results are technologically achieved. Limitations that do not recite a specific technological implementation, do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
7. Applicant argues the amended claims clearly recite how to implement energy conservation measures corresponding to the recommendations so that the one or more processors perform specific actions not recited at a high level of generality. Examiner notes that reciting specific results does not render a claim technologically specifc where the claim does not recite how those results were achieved. Here, the claim specifies outcomes such as reducing airflow or adjusting temperature, but does not recite any particular mechanism or technological technique for performing those actions. The claim therefore remains directed to applying an abstract determination using generic technology implementation rather than to a technological improvement.
8. Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of components and unconventional steps. This argument is not persuasive. The claim recites processers, memory, a user interface, and building equipment performing their ordinary functions. These components are described at a high level of generality and are used only as tools to perform the abstract analysis and apply its results. The claim does not recite any specialized hardware, improved computer functionality, or technical improvement to building systems. Accordingly, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to no more than generic components performing routine functions and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 18, rely on functional, results-oriented language without providing objective boundaries or the “how” of achieving the recited results (MPEP 2173.05(g); see also Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.). In particular:
“temporarily cease or reduce operation” is indefinite because “temporarily” is a subjective term without an objective duration or criteria in the claims (MPEP 2173.05(b), (a)).
“portion of the building” in the context of actuation lacks clear structural delimitation or objective criteria for what constitutes the “portion” at the time of control; while broad terms are not per se indefinite, here the scope is ambiguous given no recited mechanism for associating equipment with the “portion” to be shut down/reduced/adjusted (MPEP 2173.02, 2173.05(e)).
“adjust an amount of airflow” and “increase or decrease a temperature” recite relative results without a reference baseline, tolerance, or measurement context, leaving a POSITA without reasonable certainty as to the scope (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Absent claim-level recitations that tie these result statements to specific control mechanisms (e.g., identified equipment endpoints, setpoint variables, actuator commands, constraints), one of ordinary skill cannot ascertain the metes and bounds with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, claims [identify] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
10. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 10 are directed to a system, claims 11-15 and 17 are directed to a method and claims 18-20 are directed to non-transitory storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1. (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One
For Step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea that is a method of organizing human activities. Using claim 11 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 1 and 18, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
determining, by one or more processing circuits, based on emission information, emission impacts for a plurality of pieces of building equipment of a building;
generating, by the one or more processing circuits, using the emission impacts for the plurality of pieces of building equipment, a plurality of recommendations to adjust the emission impacts for the plurality of pieces of building equipment;
simulating, by the one or more processing circuits, using a model, implementation of at a first recommendation of the plurality of recommendations at a plurality of points in time based on one or more simulation parameters;
determining, by the one or more processing circuits responsive to simulating the implementation of the first recommendation, a first point in time of the plurality of points in time to implement the first recommendation of the plurality of recommendations;
generating, by the one or more processing circuits responsive to determining the first point in time, a user interface including: a graphical representation to indicate the plurality of recommendations; and an element to indicate the first point in time to implement the first recommendation of the plurality of recommendations;
receiving, via the user interface, an adjustment to one or more recommendation parameters associated with the first recommendation;
determining a change to a point in time at which to implement a second recommendation of the plurality of recommendations based on the adjustment to the one or more recommendation parameters associated with the first recommendation; and
implementing at least one of the first recommendation or the second recommendation by transmitting one or more control signals that cause one or more pieces of building equipment of the plurality of pieces of building equipment to change control strategies, change setpoints, deactivate, or execute one or more curtailment actions to adjust the emission impacts for the plurality of pieces of building equipment;
wherein implementing at least one of the first recommendation or the second recommendation comprises one or more of:
responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to shut down a portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to temporarily cease or reduce operation,
responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to adjust an amount of airflow to the portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of equipment associated with the portion of the building to reduce the amount of airflow to the portion of the building, or
responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to adjust a temperature of the portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to increase or decrease a temperature of the portion of the building.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claim relates to the planning and scheduling building actions to meet emissions goals which relate to managing organizational activity and mitigating risks (i.e., emissions reduction), which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Alternately, as drafted, the limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. For example, this claim encompasses a person processing information that is received to determine emissions impacts for a plurality of building equipment, generating recommendations to reduce emissions impacts, simulating implementation of the recommendations, determining when the recommendations should be implemented, and making adjustments to recommendations and timing of implementation which can all be performed mentally by a person. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the examiner considers whether claims 1, 11 and 18 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements claimed are as follows:
Claim 1: one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors cause processors to perform functionality, and a user interface.
Claim 11: one or more processing circuits, and a user interface.
Claim 18: One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, and a user interface.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 further recite the additional elements of implementing at least one of the first recommendation or the second recommendation by transmitting one or more control signals that cause one or more pieces of building equipment of the plurality of pieces of building equipment to change control strategies, change setpoints, deactivate, or execute one or more curtailment actions to adjust the emission impacts for the plurality of pieces of building equipment and “wherein implementing at least one of the first recommendation or the second recommendation comprises one or more of: responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to shut down a portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to temporarily cease or reduce operation, responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to adjust an amount of airflow to the portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of equipment associated with the portion of the building to reduce the amount of airflow to the portion of the building, or responsive to the first or second recommendation being a recommendation to adjust a temperature of the portion of the building, causing one or more pieces of building equipment associated with the portion of the building to increase or decrease a temperature of the portion of the building.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements amount to nothing more than generally instructing to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components in a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(e) (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); 2106.04(d).
First, the claim recites a “Building Management System (BMS) comprising one or more memory devices … and one or more processors” that “generate … a user interface including: a graphical representation to indicate the plurality of recommendations; and an element to indicate the first point in time …; [and] receive, via the user interface, an adjustment….” These recitations merely use a generic computer and UI as tools to implement and present the results of the abstract calculations. They do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. Using a computer “in its ordinary capacity … to receive, store, or transmit data” does not integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(e). The specification confirms the generic nature of these components (e.g., conventional processors/memory and GUI services at [0064]–[0069], [0124]–[0127], and [0085]).
Second, the claim’s “implementing” clause states only that the system “implement[s] at least one of the first recommendation or the second recommendation by transmitting one or more control signals that cause … equipment … to change control strategies, change setpoints, deactivate, or execute one or more curtailment actions,” and the “wherein implementing comprises” subclauses recite outcomes such as “shut down a portion of the building,” “reduce the amount of airflow,” and “increase or decrease a temperature.” These limitations are drafted as directions to apply the abstract calculations within a building-management/HVAC context, without reciting a particular technological mechanism (e.g., no specific control algorithm, protocol-level commands, actuator parameters, or feedback constraints). Such result-focused instructions constitute mere application of the judicial exception and do not meaningfully limit the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(e). To the extent the claim is confined to a BMS/HVAC environment, this is a field-of-use limitation that likewise does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The specification similarly describes implementation only in generic terms (e.g., “controlling … equipment” or “retrofitting and/or replacing” equipment at [0284]), reinforcing that the claim merely says “apply it.”
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B
The claim does not recite an inventive concept because the additional elements amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(e); 2106.07(a). Beyond the abstract calculations and scheduling, the claim merely (i) uses a generic computer and user interface to present results and accept inputs—e.g., “generate … a user interface … [to] indicate the plurality of recommendations … [and] the first point in time …; [and] receive, via the user interface, an adjustment”—and (ii) directs implementation of the results by stating that the system “implement[s] … by transmitting one or more control signals that cause … equipment … to change control strategies, change setpoints, deactivate, or execute one or more curtailment actions,” with subclauses such as “shut down a portion of the building,” “reduce the amount of airflow,” and “increase or decrease a temperature.” These recitations are results-oriented directions that simply tell a practitioner to apply the abstract calculations in a building-management context, without specifying any particular technological mechanism (e.g., no defined control algorithm, protocol-level instructions, actuator parameters, or feedback/constraint processing). As such, they do not supply an “inventive concept” that transforms the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (“apply it with a computer” is insufficient); see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (results-oriented claiming does not add an inventive concept); Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements add only the direction to implement and present the results of the abstract idea and therefore do not amount to “significantly more” under Step 2B. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2, 6, 10, and 17 are reciting more about the abstract idea of the claim and does not recite anything additional for consideration under the 2nd prong or for step 2B. What is claimed simply further defines the same abstract idea that was set forth for claims 1, 11 and 18.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 12-15 and 19-20 recites additional elements including a user device, user interface with selectable elements and one or more signals to cause an update to the user interface as well as repeating some of the additional elements found in claims 1, 11, and 18 that have been addressed above. These further additional elements are again recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For the same reasons as set forth for claims 1, 11 and 18, this is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under the 2nd prong of the eligibility analysis and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2022/0011731 and US2023/0250988 to Risbeck et. Al.
US2024/0011659 to Clement
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 JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626