DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/618,005 on 03/27/2024. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/618,005 filed 03/27/2024 claims foreign priority to 23165082, filed 03/29/2023.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed July 30, 2026, Applicant amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 3. New claim 6 was presented for examination.
Applicant cancelled claim 3. Accordingly, the previously issued claim objection has been removed.
Applicant's amendments to claim 1 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn [Item 20 of the Office action dated 05/12/2026].
Applicant's amendments to claim 1 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been maintained [Item 21 of the Office action dated 05/12/2026].
8. Applicant's amendments to claims 1-5 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026, have been fully considered.
10. Applicant submits that “amended independent claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/30/2026, page 8]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, any additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, with consideration of the following exemplary considerations that may be indicative of a practical application: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the exception with a particular machine, applying the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this instance, the additional elements recited in exemplary claim 1 are: a machine-readable semantic representation, a machine-readable representation, a machine-readable semantic data model, a guided user interface, and a system. These elements have been considered individually and in combination, however these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, the requestor device amounts to using generic computing devices as tools to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to a technological improvement or otherwise indicate a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Applicant’s claims do not adequately explain how the additional elements of the claim integrate to add any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. At the most, the claimed invention seems to provide improvement beneficial to the end users. While the methods may improve the business process of reporting a performance and providing a ranking, there is no improvement to another technology or technical field. The focus of the claims of the instant application is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Even reviewing the Applicant’s Specification (which describes the hardware and software), it is not made clear how the hardware and software result in an improvement to the technology or hardware itself. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant's invention is directed towards providing business solutions to business problems rather than providing technical solutions to technical problems; thus, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
Lastly, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no machine-readable semantic representation, machine-readable representation, machine-readable semantic data model, guided user interface, system, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information including a ranking, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “The Office previously asserted applicants' claims failed to specify how the claimed invention is technically implemented and failed to recite an improvement to a technological field. Independent claim 1 has been amended to expressly address these concerns. As amended, independent claim 1 thus now explicitly recites that: a consistent building semantic model is created as a machine-readable graph structure representing entities and relationships of building systems (step (i)); a performance semantic model is generated as a machine-readable representation of Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) domains, services, functionality levels, and impact scores (step (ii)); and the automation capabilities are computed by executing predefined queries over the building digital representation to detect equipment and determine functionality levels (step (v)). These limitations define a specific technical implementation for structuring and processing complex building data. In particular, independent claim 1 is directed to improving how a computer: 1. structures heterogeneous building data into a consistent, machine- readable semantic model; and 2. executes query-based evaluation over that model to deterministically infer system capabilities. The foregoing constitutes a technological improvement in the field of computer-implemented building modeling and analysis systems. As described, e.g., at paragraphs [0051] to [0066] and [0079] of the published application, conventional approaches rely on manual inspection and lack a consistent, machine-readable representation enabling automated evaluation. Applicants' claimed invention replaces such manual processes with a deterministic, query-driven computation over structured semantic data, thereby improving accuracy, consistency, and computational efficiency.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/30/2026, page 8]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that although the claim uses semantic models, machine-readable representations, and predefined queries, these elements appear to be tools for collecting, organizing, analyzing, and evaluating building information to determine SRI performance. The claim does not clearly explain how the particular semantic modeling or query techniques improve the underlying operation of a computer, database, or building control system. Rather, the computer appears to be used as a means for performing the same assessment that could otherwise be performed manually.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed approach improves “accuracy, consistency and computational efficiency” is a result oriented statement. The claim does not appear to recite a particular technical mechanism that necessarily produce those allied improvements. Simply representing heterogenous building information into a machine-readable semantic model and applying predefined queries does not, by itself, demonstrate an improvement in computer technology. Therefore, the claim may still be characterized as automating the abstract process of assessing and scoring building automation capabilities, with generic computer implementation, rather than as a specific technological improvement. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant submits “Contrary to proffered assertion, applicants' instant claims are not merely directed to presenting or ranking information. Rather, applicants' claimed method recites a specific data structure (machine-readable semantic model) and a specific processing mechanism (execution of predefined queries to determine functionality levels), which extend beyond generic data collection and analysis. Accordingly, the claims are analogous to those found patent-eligible in: Enfish, because they recite a specific improvement in data structure (a machine-readable semantic model); and McRO, because they recite rule-based automated evaluation (via predefined queries) replacing manual assessment.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/30/2026, page 9]
Applicant argues against the §101 rejection by seeking to analogize to Enfish. Here, unlike Enfish, the claims do not provide any device with an improvement in technology or the functioning of the computer, but rather amount to an application of the abstract idea using the ordinary functions of the computer. The claim limitations are broad, directed to implementation, and not technologically specific, so as indicated in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2014‐1194, F.3d (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015), “even if the invention required the use of a computer, the claim did not constitute a technological invention. As we are now instructed, the presence of a general purpose computer to facilitate operations through uninventive steps does not change the fundamental character of an invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).” Furthermore, the courts have said the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Moreover, the Examiner points out that the focus of the claimed invention is on the details of the abstract ideas and not on the details of a database construct, much less how a database construct interacts with the processor to actively improve operations of the processor. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). Furthermore, as recited, the claim limitations do not rise to the level of the self-referential table in Enfish. Also, in the Enfish decision, the court found that there was no abstract idea in the Enfish claims, which is not the case in the instant application.
With respect to Applicant's comparison to McRO, Examiner points out that the claims in McRO involved a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of three-dimensional characters comprising: obtaining a first set of rules that defines a morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme sequence; obtaining a plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes corresponding to a desired audio sequence for said three-dimensional characters; generating an output morph weight set stream by applying said first set of rules to each sub-sequence of said plurality of sub-sequences of timed phonemes. The claims at issue are far different from the claims in McRO. The claims of the present case involve a method of automatically computing automation capabilities of a building. The claims of the instant application do not recite techniques for automatically generating three-dimensional facial expressions matching a prerecorded track of speech. Second, it is noted that the claims in McRO recited a specific asserted improvement in computer animation. In contrast, the claim here is not directed to any improvement in computer functionalities/capabilities. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). The claims of the instant application thus cannot be characterized as an improvement in computer technology.
Further, contrary to the claims in the McRO decision, the additional elements of the instant application are not reliant on the programmed rules to improve intrinsic operations of the additional elements themselves. In McRO, the rules were deemed to allow the additional elements to accomplish a technical feature presumably not accomplished before. The Examiner points out that the claims in McRO did not simply provide a particular solution to a problem, but the claimed invention in McRO was deemed to provide an improvement in the technology. Again, Applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement in the technology. Further, in McRO the courts did not find an Abstract idea in the claims. As the instant claims do contain an abstract idea, they are not similar to the claims in McRO.
It is further noted that the Court in McRO said an improvement in computer-related technology is not limited in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of “rules” basically mathematical relationships that improve computer-related technology by allowing the computer performance of a function not previously performed by a computer. The instant Specification and claims are devoid of any indication that the claimed invention is to a “set of rules that improve computer-related technology". Therefore, the Office finds that the concept present in the McRO is not analogous to the instant claimed invention. Based on the foregoing explanation the Examiner finds that the claims are not like those of McRO. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
13. Applicant submits “Applicants instant claims therefore do not merely use a computer as a tool, but instead improve the manner in which a computer represents and processes building system data.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/30/2026, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to another technological field. Rather, the “consistent building semantic model,’ “performance semantic model,” mappings, queries, and guided user interface are used to collect, organize, analyze, and report information concerning building equipment and SRI services. These operations amount to collection, organization, analysis, and preparation of information, which are aspects of an abstract idea. The recitation of machine-readable semantic models and predefined queries merely specifies how the information is represented and processed using computer technology and does not establish an improvement to the underlying computer technology. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
14. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
15. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a consistent building semantic model to create a consistent building semantic model.” The phrase “to create a consistent building semantic model” is repeated twice. Claim 1 should recite “automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a building semantic model.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
18. Claim 1 was amended to recite “automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a consistent building semantic model to create a consistent building semantic model comprising a machine-readable semantic representation of entities, relationships, and attributes of building equipment, functions, and locations.” The phrase “a consistent building semantic model” is unclear because the term “consistent” is a relative term. There is no objective basis provided for determining whether the building semantic model is “consistent,” therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
19. Claim 1 recites “wherein the human expert performs at least one of the following actions i) checking the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function
20. Claims 2 and 4-6 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-2 and 4-6) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-2 and 4-6 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing a store, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: i) automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a consistent building semantic model to create a consistent building semantic model comprising a machine-readable semantic representation of entities, relationships, and attributes of building equipment, functions, and locations; ii) providing a plurality of calculation rules and creating a performance semantic model from said plurality of calculation rules, the performance semantic model comprising a machine-readable representation of Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) domains, services, functionality levels, and associated impact scores; iii) creating a building semantic model and retrieving mappings between the performance semantic model and the created consistent building semantic model and optionally adding information about documentation of the building to the retrieved mappings; iv) providing a building digital representation for the building, said building digital representation being formed as a semantic building model; v) computing the automation capabilities of the building with respect to Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) services by executing a plurality of predefined queries over the building digital representation, the building digital representation comprising a machine-readable semantic data model, to detect building equipment and functions and determine, for each SRI service, a corresponding functionality level based on the detected equipment and functions; vi) providing a guided user interface for completing an assessment for building services which are not available in the building digital representation by suggesting relevant documents/schemas/plans to a human expert who processes the suggested relevant documents/schemas/plans during a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services which could not be automatically processed, wherein the human expert performs at least one of the following actions i) checking the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function present in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirming that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service and updating an overall performance and iii) manually entering a functionality level for a service which directly adds information to an overall performance computation to improve the performance computation; vii) computing and reporting a performance according to the SRI services, scores at the different impact criteria and a justification for each score; and viii) creating a system that continuously follows computation of automatic performance for a set of buildings and provides a ranking based on specific SRI services and an adjustable impact criterion. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions, and may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claim, the additional elements are: a machine-readable semantic representation, a machine-readable representation, a machine-readable semantic data model, a guided user interface, and a system (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for collecting is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claim, the additional elements are: a machine-readable semantic representation, a machine-readable representation, a machine-readable semantic data model, a guided user interface, and a system (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Next, the step for collecting is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2 and 4-6 recite “utilizing a dictionary to deduce terms out of the building control system to generate the semantic building model for the building digital representation,” “wherein the building digital representation, based on semantic models, is built up and structured, also includes models for assets comprising building equipment, geometric location and function models comprising functions and datapoints,” “wherein the building digital representation is based on an ontology model, such that the building digital representation is extendable to include further classes and properties,” “wherein the building digital representation, based on semantic models, is built up and structured, also includes models for assets comprising building equipment, geometric location and function models comprising functions and datapoints,” however these limitations cover activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping and also recite steps that may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
Dependent claims recite additional elements of: wherein the semantic building model is one of natively available and composed from a building control system, said semantic building model being composed from the building control system (claim 2), such that the building digital representation results in a machine-readable and linked form (claim 4), such that the building digital representation results in a machine-readable and linked form (claim 6). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
23. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, Ramanasankaran et al. (US 2023/0153643 A1), Dutta et al. (US 2020/0349661 A1), Winter et al. (US 2021/0342961 A1), and Steele et al. (US 2015/0198938 A1), collectively teach features for i) automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a consistent building semantic model; ii) providing a plurality of calculation rules and creating a performance semantic model from said plurality of calculation rules; iii) creating a building semantic model and retrieving mappings between the performance semantic model and the created consistent building semantic model and optionally adding information about documentation of the building to the retrieved mappings; iv) providing a building digital representation for the building, said building digital representation being formed as a semantic building model; v) computing the automation capabilities of the building with respect to Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) services; vii) computing and reporting a performance according to the SRI services, scores at the different impact criteria and a justification for each score; and viii) creating a system that continuously follows computation of automatic performance for a set of buildings and provides a ranking based on specific SRI services and an adjustable impact criterion [See Office Action mailed 11/18/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to independent claim 1, while Dutta et al., describes a process that can be triggered to identify a building that can change configurations so the building can operate more efficiently (paragraph 0162), and Steele et al., describes that a user may have an option to choose to display only components that are part of the automation system or only components that are not part of the automation system (paragraph 0081), Ramanasankaran et al., Dutta et al., Winter et al., Steele et al., and the other prior art of record does not teach providing a guided user interface for completing an assessment for building services which are not available in the building digital representation by suggesting relevant documents/schemas/plans to a human expert who processes the suggested relevant documents/schemas/plans during a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services which could not be automatically processed, wherein the human expert performs at least one of the following actions i) checking the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function present in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirming that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service and iii) manually entering a functionality level for a service which directly adds information to an overall performance computation to improve the performance computation, as required by amended claim 1.
The Ramanasankaran-Dutta-Winter-Steele combination does not teach the specific process required by claim 1. Ramanasankaran et al., Dutta et al., Winter et al., and Steele et al. describes systems for managing building data, performance scores, and user interfaces for monitoring. In contrast, claim 1 recites a more intricate process including providing a guided user interface for completing an assessment for building services which are not available in the building digital representation by suggesting relevant documents/schemas/plans to a human expert who processes the suggested relevant documents/schemas/plans during a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services which could not be automatically processed, wherein the human expert performs at least one of the following actions i) checking the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function present in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirming that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service and iii) manually entering a functionality level for a service which directly adds information to an overall performance computation to improve the performance computation. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A computer-implemented method for automatically computing automation capabilities of a building, the method comprising: i) automatically collecting, selecting, linking, structuring of building information based on different sources to create a consistent building semantic model to create a consistent building semantic model comprising a machine-readable semantic representation of entities, relationships, and attributes of building equipment, functions, and locations; ii) providing a plurality of calculation rules and creating a performance semantic model from said plurality of calculation rules, the performance semantic model comprising a machine-readable representation of Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) domains, services, functionality levels, and associated impact scores; iii) creating a building semantic model and retrieving mappings between the performance semantic model and the created consistent building semantic model and optionally adding information about documentation of the building to the retrieved mappings; iv) providing a building digital representation for the building, said building digital representation being formed as a semantic building model; v) computing the automation capabilities of the building with respect to Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) services by executing a plurality of predefined queries over the building digital representation, the building digital representation comprising a machine-readable semantic data model, to detect building equipment and functions and determine, for each SRI service, a corresponding functionality level based on the detected equipment and functions; vi) providing a guided user interface for completing an assessment for building services which are not available in the building digital representation by suggesting relevant documents/schemas/plans to a human expert who processes the suggested relevant documents/schemas/plans during a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services which could not be automatically processed, wherein the human expert performs at least one of the following actions i) checking the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function present in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirming that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service and updating an overall performance and iii) manually entering a functionality level for a service which directly adds information to an overall performance computation to improve the performance computation; vii) computing and reporting a performance according to the SRI services, scores at the different impact criteria and a justification for each score; and viii) creating a system that continuously follows computation of automatic performance for a set of buildings and provides a ranking based on specific SRI services and an adjustable impact criterion,” as recited in amended claim 1, thus rendering claims 1-2 and 4-6 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).Claim 1 is also objected to due to typographical errors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharma et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0136722 A1 – describes a system and method for designing and deploying a building-related service in a building automation management system (BAMS) based on a software-defined master system (SDMS) architecture.
Engelsgaard, Sebastian, et al. "IBACSA: An interactive tool for building automation and control systems auditing and smartness evaluation." Building and Environment 184 (2020): 107240 – describes a tool for building automation systems auditing and evaluation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
