DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome Double Patenting rejections set forth previously in in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, the Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding Double Patenting rejections directed to the amended claims have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 12 and 20 to further specify:
store the building data in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges;
generate, using the building data stored in the digital twin and at least a portion of the plurality of nodes and the plurality of edges, one or more space parameters that indicate health levels of spaces of the building, one or more planet health parameters relating to an effect of the building on environmental pollution, and one or more people parameters relating to at least one of a physical health or a mental health of occupants of the building;
in the remarks, applicant argues in substance that:
Viengkham does not teach the building data used for generation of an overall building score is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges.
While the examiner agrees that Viengkham does not explicitly teach the building data used for generation of an overall building score is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges. However, a new reference Park Y US 20190158309 A1 is introduced to teach the building data used for generation of an overall building score is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges (Fig. 13 [0328] – [0329] [0331] building data is stored in digital twin of a building comprising nodes and edges as a contextual representation of the building).
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
Priority
This application is filed as CIP of abandoned prior Application No. 17354583, and claims domestic benefit of prior application 63113019, foreign priority of IN 202021035549 and IN 202121004000.
The disclosures of prior-filed application 63113019 and IN 202021035549 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application: claims 1-20.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application 63113019 and IN 202021035549
The filed claims 1-20 are entitled ONLY to priority date of the filing date of the IN 202121004000: 01/29/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIENGKHAM US 20210225529 A11 in view of Park Y US 20190158309 A1.
Regarding claim 1, VIENGKHAM teaches a building system of a building comprising one or more storage devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Figs. 1-2 [0099] [0115] monitored building environment processing system 102) to:
receive building data from one or more building systems of the building (Fig. 1 [0100] building data received form corresponding monitored building environment with different equipment and infrastructures);
store the building data (Fig. 1 [0103] building monitoring data is stored in building monitoring datastore 16);
generate, using the building data, one or more space parameters that indicate health levels of spaces of the building (Fig. 3 [0027] [0028] [0129] the process and assets metric and corresponding building operations score representing the efficiency of processes and maintenance, health, efficiency and life of the monitored building environment and infrastructure of the monitored building environment), one or more planet health parameters relating to an effect of the building on environmental pollution (Fig. 3 [0030] [0129] the environment metric and corresponding building operation score representing consumption metric and emission metric), and one or more people parameters relating to at least one of a physical health or a mental health of occupants of the building (Fig. 3 [0026] [0129] the people metric and corresponding building operations score represent the wellness, happiness and productivity of occupants within the monitored building environment);
generate, an overall building score of the building based on the one or more space parameters; the one or more planet health parameters; and the one or more people parameters (Fig. 3 [0128] [0129] [0135] the overall building operation score 308 is based on the score sets of building operation metric set 306 based on stored building data); and
control the one or more building systems of the building using at least one of the one or more space parameters, the one or more planet health parameters, or the one or more people parameters to cause the overall building score to improve ([0136] [0137] determining changes to the operations that one or more building sub-metric could be improved to have the largest impact on improving the overall building operational score, providing the change action and perform corresponding actions to improve).
VIENGKHAM does not explicitly further teach the building data is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges.
Park Y explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the building data is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building comprising a plurality of nodes interconnected by a plurality of edges (Fig. 13 [0328] – [0329] [0331] building data is stored in digital twin of a building comprising nodes and edges as a contextual representation of the building).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIENGKHAM to incorporate the teachings of Park Y, because they all directed to building management, to make the system wherein the building data is stored in a digital twin, the digital twin comprising a contextual representation of the building. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to use the space graph as a data contextualization layer for all traditional and/or artificial intelligence applications, as Park Y teaches in [0331].
Regarding claim 7, VIENGKHAM further teaches:
determine, based on the building data, one or more space health scores for the one or more space parameters of the building (Fig. 3 [0027] [0028] [0129] the process and assets metric and corresponding building operations score representing the efficiency of processes and maintenance, the health, efficiency and life of the monitored building environment and infrastructure of the monitored building environment);
determine, based on the building data, one or more planet health scores for the one or more planet health parameters of the building (Fig. 3 [0030] [0129] the environment metric and corresponding building operation score representing consumption metric and emission metric); and
determine, based on the building data, one or more people health scores for the one or more people parameters of the building (Fig. 3 [0026] [0129] the people metric and corresponding building operations score represent the wellness, happiness and productivity of occupants within the monitored building environment).
Regarding claim 8, VIENGKHAM further teaches:
generate the overall building score of the building based on the one or more space health scores, the one or more planet health scores, and the one or more people health scores (Figs. 3 [0128] [0129] [0135] the overall building operation score 308 is based on the score sets of building operation metric set 306); and
cause the one or more processors to generate a user interface including an overall building score element comprising an indication of the overall building score ([0010] [0111] user interface dash board including overall building operation scores, building operations score set and benchmark operational score set, which including the environment metric and scores).
Regarding claim 9, VIENGKHAM further teaches one or more space health score elements comprising one or more indications of the one or more space health scores ([0010] [0111] user interface dash board including overall building operation scores, building operations score set and benchmark operational score set, which including the process and asset metric and scores), indications of alerts associated with the one or more space health scores (Fig. 15 [0098] [0226] notification action including information indication a building operations score is likely caused by a problem that requires addressing is presented to user interface dashboard), and indications of one or more recommendations to perform actions to improve the one or more space health scores ([0136] notification action recommendation is presented to a user via a user interface to improve the operation score at all levels).
Regarding claim 10, VIENGKHAM further teaches one or more planet health score elements comprising one or more indications of the one or more planet health scores ([0010] [0111] user interface dash board including overall building operation scores, building operations score set and benchmark operational score set, which including the environment metric and scores), indications of alerts associated with the one or more planet health scores (Fig. 15 [0098] [0226] notification action including information indication a building operations score is likely caused by a problem that requires addressing is presented to user interface dashboard), and indications of one or more recommendations to perform actions to improve the one or more planet health scores ([0136] notification action recommendation is presented to a user via a user interface to improve the operation score at all levels).
Regarding claim 11, VIENGKHAM further teaches one or more people health score elements comprising one or more indications of the one or more people health scores ([0010] [0111] user interface dash board including overall building operation scores, building operations score set and benchmark operational score set, which including the people metric and scores), indications of alerts associated with the one or more people health scores (Fig. 15 [0098] [0226] notification action including information indication a building operations score is likely caused by a problem that requires addressing is presented to user interface dashboard), and indications of one or more recommendations to perform actions to improve the one or more people health scores ([0136] notification action recommendation is presented to a user via a user interface to improve the operation score at all levels).
Regarding claims 12 and 15-19, they are directed to a method of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 7-11, respectively. Since VIENGKHAM and Park teach the claimed system, they teach the method steps for implementing the system.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIENGKHAM in view of Park Y as applied to claims 1, 7-12 and 15-20 above, further in view of Granger US 20200200416 A12.
Regarding claim 2, VIENGKHAM further teaches the effect of the building on the environmental pollution is based on operations performed by the one or more building systems ([0277] caron emission equivalence from energy consumption, garbage sent to landfill and water waste).
Neither VIENGKHAM nor Park Y explicitly further teaches the physical or mental health of the occupants of the building is caused by the operations of the one or more building systems.
Granger explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the physical or mental health of the occupants of the building is caused by the operations of the one or more building systems ([0053] [0056] – [0058] [0083] assessing the health of the occupants of the built environment through a physical assessment i.e. “physical heath” and a psychological assessment i.e. “metal health”, the built environment can be designed to improve the user’s overall physical activity level including improving the user’s health and activity levels, wherein the problems with the user’s physical health are the result of the built environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIENGKHAM and Park Y to incorporate the teachings of Granger, because they all directed to building management, to make the system wherein the physical or mental health of the occupants of the building is caused by the operations of the one or more building systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to include actions aimed at impacting health and well-being, as Granger teaches in [0054].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, VIENGKHAM further teaches the one or more space parameters of the building indicating health levels of the spaces of the building include at least one of:
process health parameters indicating health of processes performed within the spaces of the building ([0027] [0028] [0129] the process and assets metric and corresponding building operations score representing the efficiency of processes and maintenance, the health, efficiency and life of the monitored building environment and infrastructure of the monitored building environment);
system health parameters indicating the health of the one or more building systems (Fig. 3 assets metric including equipment health and infrastructure utilization).
Granger further teaches safety and security health parameters indicating health of safety and security systems of the one or more building systems ([0219] indicators related to smoking ban, health entrance, toxic material reduction measures, ventilation control capabilities, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIENGKHAM and Park Y to incorporate the teachings of Granger, because they all directed to building management, to make the system/method wherein safety and security health parameters indicating health of safety and security systems of the one or more building systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to include actions aimed at impacting health and well-being, as well as comfort and satisfaction outcomes in the built environment, as Granger teaches in [0054].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIENGKHAM in view of Park Y and Granger as applied to claims 2, 4 and 14 above, further in view of Park US 20190094827 A1 3.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Granger further teaches:
an update to an operating setting of the one or more building systems controlling an environmental condition of the building ([0029] [0032] determining sensor measurements fall out of the target parameter, adjusting the lighting, temperature, and air quality); and
an update to add a new system or service to the one or more building systems ([0066] adding amenity);
The combination of VIENGKHAM, Park Y and Granger does not explicitly further teach a work order to perform maintenance on the one or more building systems.
Park explicitly teaches in an analogous art that a work order to perform maintenance on the one or more building systems ([0166] work order to request service on an equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIENGKHAM, Park Y and Granger to incorporate the teachings of Park and Granger, because they all directed to building management, to make the system/method wherein an update to an operating setting of the one or more building systems controlling an environmental condition of the building; a work order to perform maintenance on the one or more building systems; and an update to add a new system or service to the one or more building systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to include actions aimed at impacting health and well-being, as well as comfort and satisfaction outcomes in the built environment, as Granger teaches in [0054], and to identify the equipment requiring service, as Park teaches in [0166].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIENGKHAM in view of Park Y as applied to claims 1, 7-12 and 15-20 above, further in view of Dillon US 20210310070 A14.
Regarding claim 5, neither VIENGKHAM nor Park Y explicitly further teaches:
determine occupancy levels of a plurality of spaces of the building at a plurality of times; and
generate a user interface including at least one of:
one or more elements indicating the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces; or
one or more elements indicating occupancy level trends based on the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces of the building at the plurality of times.
Dillon explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
determine occupancy levels of a plurality of spaces of the building at a plurality of times ([0015] [0211] occupant density and occupied hours); and
generate a user interface including at least one of:
one or more elements indicating the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces ([0077] the level of risk can he communicated via computer display as the output of the analysis, wherein the analysis includes [0211] valuating a number of rooms for risk, wherein the rooms are evaluated based on Occupied hours and 'Occupant diversity” [0206] teaches annual occupied hours are rated from low, medium, and high); or
one or more elements indicating occupancy level trends based on the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces of the building at the plurality of times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VIENGKHAM and Park Y to incorporate the teachings of Dillon, because they all directed to building management, to make the system wherein determine occupancy levels of a plurality of spaces of the building at a plurality of times; and generate a user interface including at least one of: one or more elements indicating the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces; or one or more elements indicating occupancy level trends based on the occupancy levels of the plurality of spaces of the building at the plurality of times. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to address the high level of risk, as Dillon teaches in [0015].
Regarding claim 6, VIENGKHAM further teaches:
determine, based on the building data, at least one of indoor air quality of indoor air of the building ([0093] [0133] air quality monitoring with air pollutant maximum thresholds) or infectious disease risk indicating a risk level of occupants of the building contracting an infectious disease; and
cause the user interface to include at least one of an indication of the indoor air quality ([0093] [0133] air quality monitoring with air pollutant maximum thresholds) or the infectious disease risk ([0093] [0133] air quality monitoring with air pollutant maximum thresholds).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 VIENGKHAM is the prior arts of record
2 Granger is the prior arts of record
3 Park is the prior arts of record
4 Dillon is the prior arts of record