DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/618,005 on 03/27/2024, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on April 08, 2026. Claims 1-5 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 March 18, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-5, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claim 1 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim objection; accordingly, this 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to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn [Item 18 of the Office action dated 11/18/2025].
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 19 of the Office action dated 08/07/2025].
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 March 18, 2026, have been fully considered.
10. Applicant submits “Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 12(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. Applicants have amended claim 1 in a self-explanatory manner. The Office (at pg. 10) has also indicated: The phrase "the human expert at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters..." lacks a linking verb or other grammatical structure that clearly indicates the relationship between "the human expert" and the listed actions. As written, it is unclear whether the human expert is required to perform all of the recited action, one of them, or some combination thereof. The omission of a inking (sic.) verb (e.g., "performs") renders the scope of the claim ambiguous, such that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable clarity what is required by the claim. (Emphasis added) This is not true. The linking verb, which is purportedly lacking, is at the beginning of each clause, i.e., "the human expert at least one of (i) checks (ii) confirms and (iii) manually enters " should be read as "the human expert (i) checks (ii) confirms and/or (iii) manually enters " Thus, it is possible for the human expert to perform at least one of the recited actions, all of them, or some combination thereof. The skilled person would understand this, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are ascertainable by such a person. Applicants thus contend claims 1-5 fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, and withdrawal of the rejection is therefore requested.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, pages 5-6]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language, specifically “wherein the human expert at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found…” is unclear. The phrase is incomplete, as it lacks a verb to indicate the action the human expert is to perform. As currently written, it leaves ambiguity regarding the specific role of the expert and whether the actions listed are required or optional. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to explicitly state that the human expert “performs at least one of” the following actions, followed by the specific tasks. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “The Office (at pgs. 5; Response to Arguments) has indicated: There is no improvement recited to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. Instead, the computer merely executes the generic function of displaying, and receiving user input. As such, the claim does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea, but rather uses as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Applicants disagree.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, page 6]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the claim still lacks sufficient specificity to demonstrate a practical application. The claim describes a method of collecting data and computing building performance, but does not clearly define how these steps improve the functioning of a computer or any specific technological field. To overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim should further clarify how the system is implemented, whether through specific software or hardware, and how it solves a technical problem within the context of building automation. While the claim recites “creating a system that continuously follows computation of automatic performance for a set of buildings and providing a ranking based on specific SRI services and an adjustable impact criterion,” the claim does not specify what this system actually consists of or how it improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. Examiner suggest clarifying whether this system refers to a software application, hardware configuration, or a combination, and how it addresses a specific technical problem. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant also submits “As stated, applicants' claimed computer-implemented method for automatically computing automation capabilities of a building provides an improvement to the technological field of building and fleet management, and is therefore in fact limited to a useful practical application.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, 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 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 a 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.
13. Applicant further submits “As stated in paragraphs [0037] and [0040] of the published application: [0037] In view of the foregoing, it is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a method for automatically computing key capabilities of a building in terms of automation and autonomy. As the Smart Readiness Indicator covers the whole range of functions of a building, the structure and notation of this upcoming standard is adopted. [0040] Thus, the present invention describes a system allowing for automatically computing and optionally guiding the computation of the automation capabilities of a building of a fleet of buildings, according to the structure of the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI). This includes the acquisition, selection, and transformation of necessary data of different types of systems. Applicants' clamed invention is directed to a computer-implemented method that improves computer functionality when processing complex building data by (i) producing a consistent semantic model, (ii) representing SRI logic as a machine-readable performance semantic model, and (iii) automatically computing capability levels from a digital model with machine-readable justifications, enabling continuous portfolio-level ranking, which are identified as problems in the technological field of the invention.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, page 9].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that while the Applicant asserts that the claimed invention “improves computer functionality when processing complex building data,” the claim does not clearly explain how these improvements are achieved. The description in paragraphs [0037] and [0040] refers to generating a semantic model, representing SRI logic as a machine-readable performance semantic model, and computing capability levels automatically, but the claim does not specify how these operations are technically implemented. The Examiner suggest describing how the creation of the semantic model and the use of the SRI logic results in a specific technological improvements within building automation. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
14. Next, Applicant submits “As supported by at least paragraphs [0051] to [0060], [0064] to [0066] and [0079] of the published application, these are concrete computer-implemented technical operations (RDF/SPARQL/DataCube) that reduce ambiguity, avoid manual inspection, and deterministically compute results, akin to the improvements found eligible in Enfish and McRO.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, 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.
Lastly, while the Applicant refers to paragraphs 0051-0060, 0060-0064, and 0079 as support for concrete computer-implemented operations, the claim does not clearly explain how these operations improve the functionality of the computer or provide a technical solution. While the Applicant refers to the use of RDF/SPARQL/DataCube in the description, the claim itself does not describe these operations or how they contribute to a technological improvement. The claim focuses on a method for computing automation capabilities, but it does not clearly define the user of semantic models, SPARQL queries, or any underlying data structure (i.e., database) hat would enable these operations. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above, in addition to the reasons provided in the updated §101 rejection below, Applicant’s amendment and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
15. Applicant submits “Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, the step of "vi) providing a guided user interface for completing the assessment for building services that are not available in the digital building 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 at least one of."…The combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest at least this limitation.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, page 13]. Applicant further submits “There is no teaching or suggestion in Steele, however, with respect to a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services that could not be automatically processed as recited by amended independent claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, page 14]. Lastly, Applicant submits “The cited paragraphs of Winter also fail to teach or suggest a guided process in which the guided process identifies SRI services that could not be automatically processed, as called for by amended independent claim 1.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 03/18/2026, page 15]
In response to the Applicant’s arguments. In response to Applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
16. 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
17. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: manner of making amendments in applications. The amendments to claim 3 and the previous version of claim 3 are reproduced below:
Amended claim 3 (submitted on 03/18/2026):
PNG
media_image1.png
198
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 (submitted on 11/04/2025):
PNG
media_image2.png
196
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The amendments to claim 3 are improper. Applicant amended claim 3. However, the text of claim 3 shown by strikethrough (for deleted matter) does not correspond to the prior version of the claim. Amended claim 3 includes the following strike-through limitation “including.” However, the word “included” was previously deleted. The word “including” was removed from the claim using strikethrough (see Claims, 11/04/2025). As per 37 CFR 1.121, all claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reciting “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the building digital representation, based on semantic models, is built up and structured such that the building digital representation results in a machine-readable and linked form, also includes models for assets comprising building equipment, geometric location and function models comprising functions and datapoints.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-5 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.
20. Claim 1 was amended to recite “vi) providing…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 at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters a functionality level for a service which directly adds information to an overall performance computation to improve the performance computation.” The phrase “the human expert at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters…” lacks a linking verb or other grammatical structure that clearly indicates the relationship between “the human expert” and the listed actions. As written, it is unclear whether the human expert is required to perform all of the recited actions, one of them, or some combination thereof. The omission of a linking verb (e.g., “performs”) renders the scope of the claim ambiguous, such that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable clarity what is required by the claim. Accordingly, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctively claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention, and is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
21. Claim 1 was amended to recite “wherein the human expert at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found.” The phrase “the hardware/function” lacks a clear antecedent basis. Specifically, the claim first uses the term “hardware and any other function” earlier, but then later refers to “the hardware/function.” It is unclear whether “the hardware/function” refers to the same “hardware and any other function” previously introduced or if it is intended to refer to something more specific that has not been introduced, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
22. 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.
23. Claims 1-5 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 1-5) 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 1-5 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; ii) providing a plurality of calculation rules and creating a performance semantic model from said plurality of calculation rules and associated structured application; 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 for retrieved matches via an available building digital representation to automatically retrieve capabilities of the building which are relevant for an SRI computation; 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 at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters 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 providing 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 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 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- 5recite 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 2-5 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, 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”, 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 3), such that the building digital representation results in a machine-readable and linked form (claim 4). 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
24. Claims 1-5 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 and associated structured application; 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 for retrieved matches via an available building digital representation to automatically retrieve capabilities of the building which are relevant for an SRI computation; 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, wherein the human expert at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters 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 providing 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 amended 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 at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters 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 at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters 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; ii) providing a plurality of calculation rules and creating a performance semantic model from said plurality of calculation rules and associated structured application; 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 for retrieved matches via an available building digital representation to automatically retrieve capabilities of the building which are relevant for an SRI computation; 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 at least one of i) checks the suggested documents/schemas/plans for hardware or any other function which is presented in the building but missing from the building digital representation, ii) confirms that the hardware/function has been found, which would trigger an SRI assessment for a respective service such that an update of the overall performance is performed and iii) manually enters 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 providing a ranking based on specific SRI services and an adjustable impact criterion,” as recited in amended claim 1, thus rendering claims 1-5 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gollackner et al., Pub. No.: US 2024/0019824 A1 – describes a building automation network.
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 based on a software-defined master system architecture.
Walker, Pub. No.: US 2019/0102711 A1 – describes discussing assessing capabilities of the building automation system.
Kamel et al., Pub. No.: US 2012/0323382 A1 – describes real-time and continuous assessment of the building performance.
Jia, Ruoxi, et al. "Design automation for smart building systems." Proceedings of the IEEE 106.9 (2018): 1680-1699 – identifies, abstracts, and formalizes components of smart buildings, and presents a design flow that maps high-level specifications of desired building applications to their physical implementations under the platform-based design framework.
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights