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 .
Claims 1-20 filed on 05/28/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 05/20/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/28/2024 have been reviewed are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 100 in FIG. 1 ; 400 in FIG.4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification filed on 05/28/2024 has been reviewed and is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Real time Building Management System optimization using real time data including key performance identifiers.”
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, “the corresponding predefined range of setpoint” should read “the corresponding predefined range of setpoints”
In Claim 13, “the plurality of corrective action” should read “the plurality of corrective actions”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
monitoring an operation of the asset over a time period to identify a deviation between values of the operating parameters of the asset; (Mental process – monitoring is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
estimating, based on the deviation, a loss associated with operation of the asset in the building; (Mental process – estimating is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
obtaining a predefined range of setpoints corresponding to a key performance identifier (KPI); (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
causing a corrective action to be performed to adjust the values of the operating parameters of the asset to reduce the estimated loss; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
obtaining a predefined range of setpoints corresponding to a key performance identifier (KPI); (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
causing a corrective action to be performed to adjust the values of the operating parameters of the asset to reduce the estimated loss; (The additional features including adjust the values of the operating parameters as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 2:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
computing, corresponding to the corrective action, a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computing, corresponding to the corrective action, a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss; (Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 3:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
computing monetary loss associated with operation of the asset in the building for a predetermined duration of time in future; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
computing monetary loss associated with operation of the asset in the building for a predetermined duration of time in future; (Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
monitoring, operation of each of a plurality of assets installed in the building over the period of time; (Mental process – monitoring is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
estimating, based on the operation of each of the plurality of assets, an aggregated loss associated with the operation of a subset of the plurality of assets; (Mental process – estimating is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
the corrective action comprises at least one of scheduling a maintenance operation to be carried out on the asset, and varying the operating parameters of the asset; Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – scheduling a maintenance operation is considered a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)– see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II))
Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 6:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
recommending a plurality of corrective actions to reduce the estimated loss; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
indicating a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
selecting the corrective action to be performed based on the monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
recommending a plurality of corrective actions to reduce the estimated loss; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
indicating a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
selecting the corrective action to be performed based on the monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 7:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
estimating the loss comprises:
identifying a magnitude of the deviation; (Mental process – identifying is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identifying a duration of the time period during which the values of the operating parameters deviate from the corresponding predefined range of setpoints; (Mental process – identifying is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 8:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
estimating the loss comprises determining the loss based on non-compliance with a scheduled operating time predefined for the asset; (Mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
estimating the loss comprises determining a deviation in amount of time taken by the asset to reach the corresponding predefined range of setpoint from an expected amount of time; (Mental process – determining is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
monitor an operation of an HVAC system installed in a building to record values of operating parameters of the HVAC system over a time period; (Mental process – monitoring is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
estimate, based on the deviation, a loss associated with operation of the HVAC system in the building (Mental process – estimating is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
determine a deviation of the values of the operating parameters of the HVAC system from a range of setpoints predefined for the HVAC system for the time period; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
cause adjustment of the values of the operating parameters of the HVAC system to reduce the estimated loss (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
determine a deviation of the values of the operating parameters of the HVAC system from a range of setpoints predefined for the HVAC system for the time period; (Electronic recordkeeping has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
causing a corrective action to be performed to adjust the values of the operating parameters of the asset to reduce the estimated loss; (The additional features including adjust the values of the operating parameters as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determine a magnitude of deviation in temperature of an area of the building maintained by the HVAC system from a temperature as defined in the corresponding predefined range of setpoints; (Mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
determine a duration of time for which the temperature of the area deviates (Mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Therefore, Claim 11 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
monitor an operation of one or more assets installed in each of plurality of zones in a building over a period of time to determine a deviation in values of operating parameters of the one or more assets from a corresponding predefined range of setpoints; (Mental process – monitoring is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
estimate, based on the deviation, a loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones for the time period; (Mental process – estimating is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
determine a plurality of corrective actions to reduce the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of zones; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
initiate a corrective action selected from amongst the plurality of corrective actions, the corrective action being selected based on a reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
determine a plurality of corrective actions to reduce the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of zones; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
initiate a corrective action selected from amongst the plurality of corrective actions, the corrective action being selected based on a reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions (The additional features including selecting a corrective action amongst a plurality as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, Claim 12 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 13:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
plurality of corrective action comprises
controlling operating parameters of at least one of the assets, switching off least one of the assets or scheduling a maintenance operation to be carried out on at least one of the assets; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
controlling operating parameters of at least one of the assets, switching off least one of the assets or scheduling a maintenance operation to be carried out on at least one of the assets; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 13 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
to compute, corresponding to the corrective action, a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss; (Mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Therefore, Claim 14 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions, the processor is to estimate a cost to implement each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions, the processor is to estimate a cost to implement each of the plurality of corrective actions; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 15 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 16:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
identify a magnitude of the deviation; Mental process – identifying is a observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identify a duration of the time period during which the values of the operating parameters deviate from the corresponding predefined range of setpoints; Mental process – identifying is a observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 16 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 17:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
to select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
to compute a reduction in the estimated loss associated with implementing each of the plurality of corrective actions for a predetermined duration of time in future; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
to select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
to compute a reduction in the estimated loss associated with implementing each of the plurality of corrective actions for a predetermined duration of time in future; (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price has been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, Claim 17 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
to identify, based on the loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones, a zone corresponding to a highest loss; (Mental process – identifying is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 18 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 19:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
compute, based on the loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones, an aggregated loss associated with the operation of a subset of the plurality of zones in the building; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (Mathematical concept – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Therefore, Claim 19 is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 20:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
monitor, upon completion of the selected corrective action, the operation of each of the one or more assets; (Mental process – monitoring is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determine, based on comparison of the operation of each of the one or more assets prior to the completion of the selected corrective action with operation of each of the one or more assets post the completion of the selected corrective action, the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to selected corrective action; (Mental process – comparing is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, Claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elbsat et al. (US 20200356087 A1, herein Elbsat).
Regarding Claim 1, Elbsat teaches a method for managing building operations, comprising (See FIG. 16):
obtaining a predefined range of setpoints corresponding to a key performance identifier (KPI) for an asset installed in a building ([0354] 1600 includes obtaining one or more values of a performance indicator),
wherein the predefined range of setpoints for the asset ([0355] Process 1600 includes determining if a condition is met by comparing the one or more values of the performance indicator to a corresponding threshold (step 1604), according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the threshold is unique or specific to the performance indicator.) includes values for operating parameters (0354]The performance indicator(s) may include estimated degradation of equipment, predicted degradation of equipment, and/or one or more performance variables (e.g., operating setpoints, operational values, sensor readings, pressure, temperature, humidity, pressure ratio, efficiency, power consumption, etc.).; The citation illustrates operating parameters as performance variables;
Elbsat further teaches [0355] Process 1600 includes determining if a condition is met by comparing the one or more values of the performance indicator to a corresponding threshold (step 1604), according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, the threshold is unique or specific to the performance indicator. This citation illustrates range of setpoints as thresholds.) of the asset to achieve a predefined ambient condition in the building ([0110] Monitored variables can include any measured or calculated values indicating the performance of connected equipment 610 and/or the components thereof. For example, monitored variables can include one or more measured or calculated temperatures (e.g., refrigerant temperatures, cold water supply temperatures, hot water supply temperatures, supply air temperatures, zone temperatures, etc.) … or any other time-series values that provide information about how the corresponding system, device, or process is performing.
As illustrated in FIG. 14, Runtime Manager 1312 includes Rate of Change manger 1404. Further illustrated in FIG. 13 Runtime Manger 1312 is included in MPM system 1300. Furthermore, Elbsat teaches [0317] MPM system 1300 is the same as or similar to MPM system 1100, MPM system 602]; [0136] MPM system 602 may monitor the performance of connected equipment 610 using information received from BMS 606.);
monitoring an operation of the asset over a time period to ([0356] step 1606 includes determining a rate of change of any of the performance indicators (e.g., an increase or decrease amount between different time steps, a slope of any of the performance indicators, a time rate of change of any of the performance indicators, etc.).) identify a deviation between values of the operating parameters of the asset from the corresponding predefined range of setpoints ([0356] Step 1606 may be similar to step 1604 but performed by comparing rates, increase or decrease amounts, change amounts, slopes, a time rate of change, etc., of any of the performance indicators to corresponding thresholds (e.g., a corresponding slope threshold, a change threshold, a time rate of change threshold, etc.).);
estimating, based on the deviation (see FIG. 16, 1610; [0358] In some embodiments, if a condition is met by comparing a predicted degradation to an actual degradation at a corresponding time step (step 1610).), a loss associated with operation of the asset in the building ([0358] if the previously predicted degradation and the current degradation deviate from each other by a threshold amount or more);
and causing a corrective action to be performed to adjust the values of the operating parameters of the asset to reduce the estimated loss ([0358] step 1610 includes determining that the condition has been met and that model predictive optimizer 1120 should be initiated.; [0317] MPM system 1300 is the same as or similar to MPM system 1100, MPM system 602; [0129] MPM system 602 is shown providing optimization results to a building management system (BMS) 606; [0135] BMS 606 may provide control signals to connected equipment 610 specifying on/off states, charge/discharge rates, and/or setpoints for connected equipment 610.; The citation illustrates initiating the model predictive optimizer as performing a corrective action).
Regarding Claim 2, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1
Elbsat further teaches further comprising:
computing, corresponding to the corrective action ([0216] process 1000 is performed by MPM system 602; [0232] Step 1012 can include determining the costs C.sub.main,i associated with performing various types of maintenance on the building equipment. Each type of maintenance activity may have a different economic cost associated therewith.), a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss ([0232] maintenance activity of changing the oil in a chiller compressor may incur a relatively small economic cost, whereas the maintenance activity of completely disassembling the chiller and cleaning all of the chilled water tubes may incur a significantly larger economic cost).
Regarding Claim 3, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein estimating the loss comprises computing monetary loss associated with operation of the asset in the for a predetermined duration of time in future ([0285] both the maintenance schedule and the future degradation states are generated as results of an optimization process performed by model predictive optimizer 1120. The optimization process may seek to optimize (e.g., minimize) the total cost of operating connected equipment 1132 and performing maintenance on connected equipment 1132 over a given time horizon.)
Regarding Claim 4, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
monitoring, operation of each of a plurality of assets installed in the building over the period of time ([0185] Maintenance estimator 922 can be configured to use the estimated reliability of connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period to determine the probability that connected equipment 610 will require maintenance and/or replacement at each time step of the optimization period.);
estimating, based on the operation of each of the plurality of assets ([0193] Maintenance cost calculator 926 can be configured to estimate the maintenance cost of connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period.), an aggregated loss associated with the operation of a subset of the plurality of assets ([0193] Maintenance cost calculator 926 can sum the maintenance costs over the duration of the optimization period; FIG. 9 illustrates High level Optimizer 832 (which contains Maintenance cost calculator 926 and Maintenance Estimator 922) to be included in Model Predictive Optimizer 830 (illustrated in FIG. 8).).
Regarding Claim 5, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of scheduling a maintenance operation to be carried out on the asset ([0283] The maintenance schedule m.sub.k may be provided as an output of the optimization process performed by model predictive optimizer 1120. In general, the maintenance schedule m.sub.k can include any information necessary for connected equipment 1132 to be suitably maintained, replaced, upgraded, repaired, and/or otherwise serviced.; connected equipment 1132 is illustrated as [0259] Connected equipment 1132 may be the same as or similar to connected equipment 610), and varying the operating parameters of the asset ([0213] The optimization results may cause BMS 606 to activate, deactivate, or adjust a setpoint for connected equipment 610 in order to achieve the optimal values of the decision variables specified in the optimization results.).
Regarding Claim 6, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the method further comprises
recommending a plurality of corrective actions to reduce the estimated loss ([0213] objective function optimizer 940 generates optimization results. The optimization results include operating decisions, equipment maintenance decisions, and/or equipment purchase decisions for each device of connected equipment 610.; FIG. 9 illustrates High level Optimizer 832 (which contains Objective Function Optimizer) to be included in Model Predictive Optimizer 830 (illustrated in FIG. 8).);
indicating a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions ([0126] the equipment purchase and maintenance recommendations generated by MPM system 602 may be specific to each group of connected equipment 610 in order to achieve the optimal cost. The equipment-specific recommendations may result in a lower overall cost);
and selecting the corrective action to be performed based on the monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions ([0127] the equipment purchase and maintenance recommendations are provided to building 10 (e.g., to BMS 606) and/or to client devices 448. An operator or building owner can use the equipment purchase and maintenance recommendations to assess the costs and benefits of performing maintenance and purchasing new devices)
Regarding Claim 7, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein estimating the loss comprises (FIG. 17 is plotted on a time axis):
identifying a magnitude of the deviation (see FIG. 17 [0344] Series 1702 illustrates actual degradation of the connected equipment 1132, whereas series 1704 illustrates predicted degradation of the connected equipment 1132, according to some embodiments.; [0345] Graph 1700 illustrates a difference 1706 between the actual degradation 1702 and the predicted degradation 1704.);
and identifying a duration of the time period during which the values of the operating parameters deviate from the corresponding predefined range of setpoints ([0345] condition manager 1408 is configured to estimate the difference 1706 between the predicted degradation 1704 and the actual degradation 1702.; [0368] Data 2010 may be configured to provide various operational data to a controller (e.g., BMS controller 366, MPM controller 1302, MPM controller 1102, etc.). Data 2010 may include time series data, wherein the data is a series of data points indexed in time order.; The citation illustrates the data provided to the MPM controller containing the condition manager is a time based data and therefore a duration of time is measured).
Regarding Claim 9, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1,
Elbsat further teaches wherein estimating the loss comprises
determining a deviation in amount of time taken by the asset to reach the corresponding predefined range of setpoint from an expected amount of time ([0332] condition manager 1408 compares a current value of one of the performance variables y.sub.k (e.g., the efficiency of the connected equipment 1132) to the threshold amount y.sub.thresh).
Regarding Claim 10, Elbsat teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource to:
monitor an operation of an HVAC system installed in a building ([0108] Connected equipment 610 can include any of the equipment of HVAC system 100, waterside system 200, airside system 300, BMS 400, and/or BMS 500, as described with reference to FIGS. 1-5.
[0112] Connected equipment 610 can provide monitored variables and equipment status information to BMS 606.) to record values of operating parameters of the HVAC system over a time period ([0110] Monitored variables can include any measured or calculated values indicating the performance of connected equipment 610 and/or the components thereof. For example, monitored variables can include one or more measured or calculated temperatures (e.g., refrigerant temperatures, cold water supply temperatures, hot water supply temperatures, supply air temperatures, zone temperatures, etc.) … or any other time-series values that provide information about how the corresponding system, device, or process is performing.);
determine a deviation of the values of the operating parameters of the HVAC system from a range of setpoints predefined for the HVAC system for the time period ([0341] rate of change manager 1404 is configured to estimate, calculate, determine, etc. a difference or a delta between values of any of the performance indicator(s) at subsequent time steps.;
As illustrated in FIG. 14, Runtime Manager 1312 includes Rate of Change manger 1404. Further illustrated in FIG. 13 Runtime Manger 1312 is included in MPM system 1300. Furthermore, Elbsat teaches [0317] MPM system 1300 is the same as or similar to MPM system 1100, MPM system 602]; [0136] MPM system 602 may monitor the performance of connected equipment 610 using information received from BMS 606.)
wherein the range of setpoints indicate values for operating parameters of the HVAC system for the time period ([0341] Rate of change manager 1404 is configured to receive any of the performance indicator(s) (e.g., the performance variable(s), the degradation prediction, the degradation estimate, etc.) and determine, calculate, estimate, etc., a rate of change (e.g., a time rate of change) of any of the performance indicator(s));
estimate, based on the deviation, a loss associated with operation of the HVAC system in the building ([0347] If condition manager 1408 determines that the performance indicator is significant (e.g., that the variance, covariance, deviation, etc., exceeds the threshold variance, the threshold covariance, etc.));
and cause adjustment of the values of the operating parameters ([0213] The optimization results may cause BMS 606 to activate, deactivate, or adjust a setpoint for connected equipment 610 in order to achieve the optimal values of the decision variables specified in the optimization results.) of the HVAC system to reduce the estimated loss ([0213] The optimization results may cause BMS 606 to activate, deactivate, or adjust a setpoint for connected equipment 610 in order to achieve the optimal values of the decision variables specified in the optimization results.).
Regarding Claim 11, Elbsat teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as in Claim 10,
Elbsat further teaches wherein to estimate the loss, the non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprises instructions executable by the processing resource to:
determine a magnitude of deviation in temperature of an area of the building maintained by the HVAC system from a temperature as defined in the corresponding predefined range of setpoints ([0345] condition manager 1408 is configured to estimate the difference 1706 between the predicted degradation 1704 and the actual degradation 1702.) and determine a duration of time for which the temperature of the area deviates ([0368] data 2010 may include significantly more types of data relating to equipment (e.g., boilers, chillers, pumps, compressors, VAV boxes, AHU's, etc.) operation within HVAC system 100.; [0368] Data 2010 may be configured to provide various operational data to a controller (e.g., BMS controller 366, MPM controller 1302, MPM controller 1102, etc.). Data 2010 may include time series data, wherein the data is a series of data points indexed in time order.; The citation illustrates the data provided to the MPM controller containing the condition manager is a time based data and therefore a duration of time is measured).
Regarding Claim 12, Elbsat teaches a system for managing building operations, the system comprising:
a processor to: monitor an operation of one or more assets installed in each of plurality of zones in a building over a period of time ([0132] BMS 606 monitors the run hours of connected equipment 610; [0108] Connected equipment 610 can include connected chillers 612, connected AHUs 614, connected boilers 616, connected batteries 618, or any other type of equipment in a building system.)
to determine a deviation in values of operating parameters ([0341] Rate of change manager 1404 is configured to receive any of the performance indicator(s) (e.g., the performance variable(s), the degradation prediction, the degradation estimate, etc.) and determine, calculate, estimate, etc., a rate of change (e.g., a time rate of change) of any of the performance indicator(s); [0345] difference 1706 between the actual degradation 1702 and the predicted degradation 1704.) of the one or more assets from a corresponding predefined range of setpoints ([0333] Condition manager 1408 can use the different threshold ranges (e.g., the first, second, and third threshold ranges) and the value of the corresponding performance variable y.sub.k to identify if model predictive optimizer 1120 should be initiated… It should be understood that each of the different performance variables y.sub.k may have different associated or corresponding threshold values (e.g., different values of y.sub.thresh,1, y.sub.thresh,2, y.sub.thresh,3, and y.sub.thresh,4).
As illustrated in FIG. 14, Runtime Manager 1312 includes Rate of Change manger 1404. Further illustrated in FIG. 13 Runtime Manger 1312 is included in MPM system 1300. Furthermore, Elbsat teaches [0317] MPM system 1300 is the same as or similar to MPM system 1100, MPM system 602]; [0136] MPM system 602 may monitor the performance of connected equipment 610 using information received from BMS 606.),
wherein the predefined range of setpoints includes values of operating parameters of the one or more assets predefined for the time period ([0110] Monitored variables can include any measured or calculated values indicating the performance of connected equipment 610 and/or the components thereof. For example, monitored variables can include one or more measured or calculated temperatures (e.g., refrigerant temperatures, cold water supply temperatures, hot water supply temperatures, supply air temperatures, zone temperatures, etc.) … or any other time-series values that provide information about how the corresponding system, device, or process is performing.);
estimate, based on the deviation, a loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones for the time period ([0345] if the actual degradation 1702 deviates from a previously predicted degradation 1704 by a threshold amount or more (e.g., if the difference 1706 is greater than or equal to the threshold difference), condition manager 1408 may determine that the condition has been met and may provide a command to MPM initiator 1410.);
determine a plurality of corrective actions ([0213] optimization results include operating decisions, equipment maintenance decisions, and/or equipment purchase decisions for each device of connected equipment 610) to reduce the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of zones ([0123] the optimization results optimize the economic value of operating, maintaining, and purchasing connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period);
and initiate a corrective action selected from amongst the plurality of corrective actions ([0129] MPM system 602 is shown providing optimization results to a building management system (BMS) 606; [0135] BMS 606 may provide control signals to connected equipment 610 specifying on/off states, charge/discharge rates, and/or setpoints for connected equipment 610.), the corrective action being selected based on a reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to each of the plurality of corrective actions.
Regarding Claim 13, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the plurality of corrective action comprises
controlling operating parameters of at least one of the assets, switching off least one of the assets, or scheduling a maintenance operation to be carried out on at least one of the assets ([0135] BMS 606 may provide control signals to connected equipment 610 specifying on/off states, charge/discharge rates, and/or setpoints for connected equipment 610.).
Regarding Claim 14, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the processor is to compute, corresponding to the corrective action ([0216] process 1000 is performed by MPM system 602; [0232] Step 1012 can include determining the costs C.sub.main,i associated with performing various types of maintenance on the building equipment. Each type of maintenance activity may have a different economic cost associated therewith.), a monetary value of the reduction in the estimated loss ([0232] maintenance activity of changing the oil in a chiller compressor may incur a relatively small economic cost, whereas the maintenance activity of completely disassembling the chiller and cleaning all of the chilled water tubes may incur a significantly larger economic cost).
Regarding Claim 15, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein to select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions ([0213] objective function optimizer 940 generates optimization results. The optimization results include operating decisions, equipment maintenance decisions, and/or equipment purchase decisions for each device of connected equipment 610.; FIG. 9 illustrates High level Optimizer 832 (which contains Objective Function Optimizer) to be included in Model Predictive Optimizer 830 (illustrated in FIG. 8).), the processor is to estimate a cost to implement each of the plurality of corrective actions ([0126] The optimization performed by MPM system 602 weighs the cost of performing maintenance and the cost of purchasing new equipment)
Regarding Claim 16, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein to estimate the loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets, the processor is to:
identify a magnitude of the deviation (see FIG. 17 [0344] Series 1702 illustrates actual degradation of the connected equipment 1132, whereas series 1704 illustrates predicted degradation of the connected equipment 1132, according to some embodiments.; [0345] Graph 1700 illustrates a difference 1706 between the actual degradation 1702 and the predicted degradation 1704.);
and identify a duration of the time period during which the values of the operating parameters deviate from the corresponding predefined range of setpoint ([0345] condition manager 1408 is configured to estimate the difference 1706 between the predicted degradation 1704 and the actual degradation 1702.; [0368] Data 2010 may be configured to provide various operational data to a controller (e.g., BMS controller 366, MPM controller 1302, MPM controller 1102, etc.). Data 2010 may include time series data, wherein the data is a series of data points indexed in time order.; The citation illustrates the data provided to the MPM controller containing the condition manager is a time based data and therefore a duration of time is measured).
Regarding Claim 17, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein to select the corrective action from amongst the plurality of corrective actions ([0232] Step 1012 can include determining the costs C.sub.main,i associated with performing various types of maintenance on the building equipment.; various types of maintenance is plurality of corrective action), the processor is to compute a reduction in the estimated loss associated with implementing each of the plurality of corrective actions for a predetermined duration of time in future ([0285] both the maintenance schedule and the future degradation states are generated as results of an optimization process performed by model predictive optimizer 1120.
The optimization process may seek to optimize (e.g., minimize) the total cost of operating connected equipment 1132 and performing maintenance on connected equipment 1132 over a given time horizon.)
Regarding Claim 18, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the processor is to
identify, based on the loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones ([0114] Model predictive maintenance (MPM) system 602 may use the monitored variables and/or the equipment status information to identify a current operating state of connected equipment 610.; [0108] Connected equipment 610 can include any of the equipment of HVAC system 100, waterside system 200, airside system 300, BMS 400, and/or BMS 500, as described with reference to FIGS. 1-5. ; As illustrated in FIG.6 BMS 500 incorporates various zone coordinators. Elbsat further teaches [0104] each zone coordinator 506-510 and 518 monitors and commands a separate zoning system and is connected to the zoning system via a separate zone bus)
, a zone corresponding to a highest loss ([0157] Cost predictors 910, 920, and 930 can use a model predictive control technique to formulate an objective function which expresses the total cost as a function of several decision variables (e.g., maintenance decisions, equipment purchase decisions, etc.) and input parameters (e.g., energy cost, device efficiency, device reliability).; FIG. 9 illustrates High level Optimizer 832 (which contains cost predictors 910, 9210, 930) to be included in Model Predictive Optimizer 830 (illustrated in FIG. 8).).
Regarding Claim 19, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the processor is to compute, based on the loss associated with the operation of the one or more assets in each of the plurality of zones ([0193] Maintenance cost calculator 926 can be configured to estimate the maintenance cost of connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period.;[0108] Connected equipment 610 can include any of the equipment of HVAC system 100, waterside system 200, airside system 300, BMS 400, and/or BMS 500, as described with reference to FIGS. 1-5. ; As illustrated in FIG.6 BMS 500 incorporates various zone coordinators. Elbsat further teaches [0104] each zone coordinator 506-510 and 518 monitors and commands a separate zoning system and is connected to the zoning system via a separate zone bus), an aggregated loss associated with the operation of a subset of the plurality of zones in the building ([0118] The first term in the objective function J represents the operating cost of connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period.
Elbsat teaches [0115] MPM system 602 can use a model predictive control technique to formulate an objective function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbsat, in view of Grenier et al. (US 20080082345 A1, herein Greiner).
Regarding Claim 8, Elbsat teaches the method as in Claim 1 but does not teach the limitations in Claim 8,
Greiner further teaches wherein estimating the loss comprises
determining the loss ([0046] According to one embodiment, risk management system 140 may provide a plurality of recommendations associated with several options for addressing event alert conditions associated with a machine.) based on non-compliance with a scheduled operating time predefined for the asset ([0046] recommendations from risk management system 140 may provide information as to the cost/benefits of delaying action until a future date, allowing a project manager to schedule machine maintenance according to a particular project schedule.).
Greiner further teaches [0048] Although the disclosed embodiments are described in association with machine environment 100, the disclosed system and method for evaluating risks associated with delaying maintenance described herein may be applicable to any environment where it may be desirable to evaluate costs associated with responding immediately to maintenance notifications versus delaying response until a future date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Elbsat to incorporate the teachings of Greiner so as to include considering the increased cost of maintenance to be a loss due to a non-compliance. Doing so would allow an optimization of cost savings. (Greiner [0008] evaluating risks associated with delaying machine maintenance are directed toward overcoming one or more of the problems set forth above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbsat, in view of Zyglowiez et al. (US 11055450 B2, herein Zyglowiez).
Regarding Claim 20, Elbsat teaches the system as in Claim 12,
Elbsat further teaches wherein the processor is to:
monitor, upon completion of the selected corrective action, the operation of each of the one or more assets ([0166] Efficiency updater 911 can be configured to reset the efficiency η.sub.i for a given time step i if the binary decision variables B.sub.main,i and B.sub.cap,i indicate that maintenance will be performed at that time step);
and determine, prior to the completion of the selected corrective action with operation of each of the one or more assets post the completion of the selected corrective action, the reduction in the estimated loss corresponding to selected corrective action ([0168] efficiency degrader 913 can define the efficiency at each time step i=1. h as follows. η.sub.i=η.sub.i−1−Δη; where η.sub.i is the efficiency at time step i, η.sub.i−1 is the efficiency at time step i−1, and Δη is the degradation in efficiency between consecutive time steps.).
Elbsat does not explicitly teach based on comparison.
Zygloweiz teaches based on comparison (see FIG. 8 (806); [column 18 line 60- column 19 line 2] if the comparison at 806 determines that a different maintenance action was performed, data associated with the industrial asset may be reviewed to assess why a different maintenance action was performed. For example, if it can be determined that the maintenance technician simply neglected to replace the degraded insulation, there may be no reason to update the model based upon the maintenance technician's actions (e.g., because the model's recommended action(s) may have been more correct than the technician's actions).)It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the controller of Elbsat to incorporate the teachings of Zyglowiez so as to analyzing if the performance change was as expected after the maintenance of the asset. Doing so would allow comparison between the pre-maintenance and post-maintenance operation costs.(Zyglowiez [column 19 line 27-30] trends in the discrepancies and/or accuracies can be identified and/or other discoveries can be made and used to adjust a model parameter and/or model logic).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200356087 A1 – Model Predictive Maintenance System with Event or Condition Based Performance (performance indicators keeping track of building operating equipment and performing maintenance operations or adjustments based on the deviation of indicators)
US 20080082345 A1 – System and Method for Evaluating Risks Associated with Delaying Machine Maintenance (risks associated in situations where maintenance is faced with a non-compliance or ignored).
US 1055450 B2 – Industrial Asset Health Model Update (optimization and prediction of maintenance and comparison after maintenance for industrial assets)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Choi whose telephone number is (571) 270 0512. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (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 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.
/J.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights