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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a method for generating a central utility plant model based on Natural Language input, classified in G05B15/02.
II. Claims 11-15, drawn to a method for configuring simulations based on user query using a generative AI model, classified in G05Q10/04.
III. Claims 16-20, drawn to a method for providing a response to user query based on running simulation using the central utility plant model, classified in G05B19/042.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as configuring, based on the user query and by the one or more processors using a generative AI model, a set of simulations, subcombination III has separate utility such as generating, by the one or more processors using the AI model, a central utility plant model for the central utility plant based on the textual or audible input and running, by the one or more processors, the set of simulations using the central utility plant model. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with James Campbell on 5/27/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/14/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/21/24 and 3/5/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200379418 to Fread et al. (hereinafter “Fread”), in view of US10360304 to Alvarez et al. (hereinafter “Alvarez”).
As for claim 1, Fread substantially discloses a method (Fread, see [0011]) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, user input describing characteristics of a central utility plant for a building (Fread, see [0126] for a method of receiving user inputs including characteristic data; see [0170] for processors performing the method);
identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of pieces of building equipment satisfying the characteristics of the central utility plant (Fread, see [0126]-[0127] for identifying devices satisfying the characteristics and see [0170] for processors performing the method);
generating, by the one or more processors, a central utility plant model for the central utility plant based on the user input, the central utility plant model satisfying the characteristics and including the identified pieces of building equipment (Fread, see [0126]-[0128] for generating a central utility plant model that satisfying the characteristics and including the identified pieces of building equipment based on the user input; and see [0170] for processors performing the method);
installing or operating at least one of the plurality of pieces of building equipment based on a result provided using the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0018] for operating at least one of the plurality of pieces of building equipment based on a result provided using the central utility plant model).
Fread does not explicitly disclose the user input comprising unstructured natural language input, identifying equipment using an AI model based on the unstructured natural language input, generating, using the AI model, a model based on the unstructured natural language input.
However, Alvarez in an analogous art discloses the user input comprising unstructured natural language input (Alvarez, see col. 13 lines 6-9 for the user input being unstructured natural language input),
identifying equipment using an AI model based on the unstructured natural language input (Alvarez, see col. 12 lines 9-31 “the intent may be determined from a user input to a natural language processing interface as depicted in FIG. 9. A location is then determined (block 1104). The intent may be associated with a specific occupant and device operated by the occupant…The component control method 1100 may utilize the individual models or a combination of models. The location further determines the components and sensors that may be utilized to determine how and which components to be altered),
generating, using the AI model, a model based on the unstructured natural language input (Alvarez, see col. 9 lines 50-57 “the snapshot of the various components along with the input from the natural language processing interface 632 to the API 642 is utilized by the AI 640 to generate and update its models”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fread further discloses the central utility plant model comprises equipment models for the identified pieces of building equipment and constraints defining relationships between the equipment models and representing physical connections between the identified pieces of building equipment (Fread, see [0128] “the device layer generator 608 is configured to generate the device layers 610 by forming connections (e.g., hydraulic connections, physical connections, etc.) between each piece of equipment included in a central plant “ and [0142] “generating a particular device layer by inserting device connections between devices to represent the physical and/or hydraulic relationships between connected devices”).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fread further discloses controlling the central utility plant by performing an optimization using the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0018] for operating at least one of the plurality of pieces of building equipment based on a result provided using the central utility plant model and the control system also includes a demand response optimizer configured to use the central plant model generated by the central plant optimizer wizard generator to determine control decisions for the devices included in the central plant).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fread, in view of Alvarez, further in view of US20240095460 to Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Fread and Alvarez does not explicitly disclose the AI model comprises a generative large language model (LLM) comprising a pretrained generative transformer model.
However, Xu in an analogous art discloses the AI model comprises a generative large language model (LLM) comprising a pretrained generative transformer model (Xu, see [0029], “large language model” and “pretrained generative transformer model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Xu into the above combination of Fread and Alvarez. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method that is capable of interpreting questions of various forms and provide unscripted answers in return using data corresponding to a knowledge base (Xu, see [0004]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Fread further discloses generate the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0126]-[0128] for generating a central utility plant model that satisfying the characteristics and including the identified pieces of building equipment based on the user input). Alvarez further discloses the unstructured natural language input is non-conforming to a predetermined format and comprise text input, the AI is configured to generate the model from the text input (Alvarez, see col. 9 lines 50-57 “the snapshot of the various components along with the input from the natural language processing interface 632 to the API 642 is utilized by the AI 640 to generate and update its models” and see col. 13 lines 6-9 for the user input being unstructured natural language input that is non-conforming to a predetermined format).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
Xu further discloses the generative LLM (Xu, see [0029], “large language model” and “pretrained generative transformer model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Xu into the above combination of Fread and Alvarez. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method that is capable of interpreting questions of various forms and provide unscripted answers in return using data corresponding to a knowledge base (Xu, see [0004]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Fread further discloses generate the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0126]-[0128]). Alvarez further discloses generate the model from the unstructured natural language input without requiring manual configuration of the utility plant model by a user (Alvarez, see col. 9 lines 50-57 “the snapshot of the various components along with the input from the natural language processing interface 632 to the API 642 is utilized by the AI 640 to generate and update its models”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
Xu further discloses the generative LLM (Xu, see [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Xu into the above combination of Fread and Alvarez. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method that is capable of interpreting questions of various forms and provide unscripted answers in return using data corresponding to a knowledge base (Xu, see [0004]).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fread, in view of Alvarez, further in view of US20190378020 to Camilus et al. (hereinafter “Camilus”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fread further discloses the central utility plant (Fread, see [0070]), running, by the one or more processors, the set of simulations using the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0070] and [0138]), a response based on the running the set of simulations using the central utility plant model (Fread, see [0070] and [0138]). Alvarez further discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a user query describing a desired outcome relating to the utility plant, user input being user query (Alvarez, see col. 11 lines 17-26), providing, by the one or more processors, a response to the user query based on the model (Alvarez, see col. 11 line 66-col. 12 line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
The combination of Fread and Alvarez does not explicitly disclose configuring based on user input and by the one or more processors using the AI model, a set of simulations.
However, Camilus in an analogous art discloses configuring based on user input and by the one or more processors using the AI model, a set of simulations (Camilus, see [0014] and [0078]), Camilus also discloses providing a response to the user input based on the running the set of simulations (Camilus, see [0014] and [0073]-[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Camilus into the above combination of Fread and Alvarez. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to reduce their building operating cost by providing a building energy system for simulating energy data and pre-training a predictive building model (Camilus, see [0038]).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Fread further discloses central utility plant (Fread, see [0070]). Alvarez further discloses the response to the user query comprises a physical action to be executed by the utility plant, executing by the utility plant the physical action (Alvarez, see col. 11 line 66-col. 12 line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Fread further discloses the user query comprises a request for equipment options (Fread, see [0108]).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Alvarez further discloses the user query comprises unstructured natural language input (Alvarez, see col. 11 lines 17-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alvarez into the method of Fread. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an interactive, occupant comfort and operational efficiency solution that addresses the continually changing occupancy, use patterns, knowledge economy, and workforce demands, as well as giving the operators new levels of visibility into how their building is performing using AI (Alvarez, see col. 1 lines 30-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20240345551 discloses a method can include receiving a query to select, from a plurality of data sources of a building management system, a selected one or more data sources according to a characteristic indicated by the query in at least one of a natural language representation or a semantic representation. The method can further include applying the query as input to a machine learning model to cause the machine learning model to generate an output indicating the selected one or more data sources, the machine learning model configured using training data comprising sample data and metadata from the plurality of data sources. The method can further include presenting, using at least one of a display device or an audio output device, the output.
US20190377305 discloses a hierarchical resource management system for a building includes one or more processors. The processors implement a plurality of agents that each monitor sensed values, and generate operating scenarios based on the sensed values for corresponding resources. The processors also implement a coordinator that filters the operating scenarios to remove the operating scenarios that violate internal laws of the agents to form an aggregate validated set of operating scenarios. The processors further implement a supervisor that, responsive to receipt of target conditions for the zones and the aggregate validated set of operating scenarios from the coordinator, selects a combination of the operating scenarios from the aggregate validated set of operating scenarios that achieves target conditions and minimizes overall energy consumption by the resources such that some of the operating scenarios of the combination do not minimize energy consumption of the resources corresponding to the some of the operating scenarios.
US20170363349 discloses a system for inventory management comprises: an internal compartment; and a delivery control circuit coupled to the internal compartment; a configuration control circuit coupled to the delivery container, the configuration control circuit configured to: identify a product for delivery in the internal compartment; determine an optimum delivery temperature for the identified product; and initially configure the internal compartment to provide the optimum delivery temperature for the identified product, wherein the delivery control circuit is configured to maintain the optimum delivery temperature in the internal compartment during delivery of the identified product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights