DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 2, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a computer-based system” (i.e. a machine), claim 16 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), and claim 20 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “training a user via an emulated real-world building environment,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“based on an initial training input from a trainer user, implement a building simulation model, the building simulation model configured to produce an emulated real-world building environment;
for an iteration of the building simulation model, determine a value of at least one forcing function, the at least one forcing function associated with the emulated real-world building environment;
based on (i) the value of the at least one forcing function determined and (ii) at least one building operation input received from the trainee user via the building training interface, transform a current state of the building simulation model into an updated state of the building simulation model; and
based on (i) the updated state and (ii) the initial training input, generate at least one building training item for the trainee user.”
Per claim 16:
“based on an initial training input from a trainer user, implementing a building simulation model, the building simulation model configured to produce an emulated real-world building environment;
for an iteration of the building simulation model, determining a value of at least one forcing function, the at least one forcing function associated with the emulated real-world building environment;
based on (i) the value of the at least one forcing function determined and (ii) at least one building operation input received from a trainee user via a building training interface, transforming a current state of the building simulation model into an updated state of the building simulation model; and
based on (i) the updated state and (ii) the initial training input, generating at least one building training item for the trainee user.”
Per claim 20:
“based on an initial training input from a trainer user, implement a building simulation model, the building simulation model configured to produce an emulated real-world building environment;
for an iteration of the building simulation model, determine a value of at least one forcing function, the at least one forcing function associated with the emulated real-world building environment;
based on (i) the value of the at least one forcing function determined and (ii) at least one building operation input received from a trainee user via a building training interface, transform a current state of the building simulation model into an updated state of the building simulation model; and
based on (i) the updated state and (ii) the initial training input, generate at least one building training item for the trainee user.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a building training interface,” “at least one processor,” and “a memory,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “training a user via an emulated real-world building environment,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a building training interface,” “at least one processor,” and “a memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the element of “a building training interface,” is described in para. [0055] as follows:
“[0055]…The building training interface 220 may be, e.g., an iConnect® Training PT-181 BAS portable training unit provided by North Park Innovations Group, Inc. (Ellicottville, NY) or other suitable known building training interface.”
Here, the Applicant’s own specification discloses an off-the -shelf commercially available product having no further advancement in technology. As such, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional element.
Likewise, the elements of “at least one processor, and “a memory,” are described in paras. [0054], [0100] and [0101] as follows:
“[0054] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer-based system 110 that includes an example embodiment of the present disclosure. In the example embodiment of FIG. 1, the system 110 comprises a building training interface 120, at least one processor (not shown), and memory (not shown) with computer code instructions (not shown) stored thereon, such as disclosed further below with respect to FIG. 20. The building training interface 120 corresponds to a trainee user 188. The at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are configured to cause the system 110 to, based on an initial training input 178 from a trainer user 182, implement a building simulation model 130, which may utilize, e.g., an EnergyPlus® tool. The trainer user 182 may employ or alternatively may be a user device 184 such as a personal computer (PC), laptop, table, smartphone, or any other suitable known user device. …”
“[0100] FIG. 20 is a block diagram of an example embodiment of an internal structure of a computer 2000 in which various embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented. The computer 2000 contains a system bus 2072, where a bus is a set of hardware lines used for data transfer among the components of a computer or digital processing system. The system bus 2072 is essentially a shared conduit that connects different elements of a computer system (e.g., processor, disk storage, memory, I/O ports, network ports, etc.) that enables the transfer of information between the elements. Coupled to the system bus 2072 is an I/O device interface 2054 for connecting various input and output devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, displays, printers, speakers, etc.) to the computer 2000. A network interface 2056 allows the computer 2000 to connect to various other devices attached to a network (e.g., global computer network, wide area network, local area network, etc.). A memory 2058 provides volatile or non-volatile storage for computer software instructions 2080 and data 2062 that may be used to implement embodiments (e.g., the computer-based system 110, the computer-based system 210, and the method 1900, etc.) of the present disclosure, where the volatile and non-volatile memories are examples of non-transitory media. A disk storage 2064 provides non-volatile storage for the computer software instructions 2080 and data 2062 that may be used to implement embodiments (e.g., the computer-based system 110, the computer-based system 210, and the method 1900, etc.) of the present disclosure. A central processor unit 2066 is also coupled to the system bus 2072 and provides for the execution of computer instructions.”
“[0101] As used herein, the terms “model,” “module,” “interface,” and “framework” may refer to any hardware, software, firmware, electronic control component, processing logic, and/or processor device, individually or in any combination, including without limitation: an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an electronic circuit, a processor and memory that executes one or more software or firmware programs, and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 16. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights