DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 7, 9, 12 – 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Cella et al. US 2021/0360070 (hereinafter Cella).
Regarding claim 1, Cella teaches: a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, data relating to one or more pieces of building equipment ([0321] - - collecting sensor data);
analyzing, by the one or more processors using an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the data and identifying an issue relating to the one or more pieces of building equipment (0257] - - a component downstream to a valve is failing; control based on determination made by the AI system; [0014] - - machine learn models); and
generating, by the one or more processors using the AI model, one or more updated operating parameters for the one or more pieces of building equipment based on the analysis (0257] - - shut the valve in response to a component downstream to a valve is failing; control based on determination made by the AI system).
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 4, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cella further teaches: self-healing the issue with the one or more pieces of building equipment based on the analysis of the AI model ([0326] - - using models to predict mold-inducing states in a room, provide commands to control the HVAC system).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 5, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cella further teaches: implementing at least one of one or more potential improvements ([0326] - - using models to predict mold-inducing states in a room, provide commands to control the HVAC system).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 6, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cella further teaches: the issue relating to the one or more pieces of building equipment includes issues in collecting information associated with the one or more pieces of building equipment ([0193] - - detect failure of a sensor; failure of a sensor is an issue in collecting information), the method comprising:
retrieving, by the one or more processors, second information associated with the one or more pieces of building equipment, wherein the second information corresponds to one or more points in time prior to the issue relating to the one or more pieces of building equipment ([0292] - - a machine learned model predicts a potential issue or classifies a current issue; the data used for predicting a potential issue is second information);
inputting, by the one or more processors, the second information into the AI model to cause the AI model to generate one or more predictions regarding subsequent performance of the one or more pieces of building equipment ([0292] - - a machine learned model predicts a potential issue); and
presenting, by the one or more processors, a user interface that includes an indication of the one or more predictions ([0326] - - display the analysis result to a human user).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 7, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Cella further teaches the issue relating to the one or more pieces of building equipment includes the one or more pieces of building equipment performing at a level below a predetermined threshold ([0197] - - deltas in sensor measurements that are above a threshold; [0241] - - sensor measurements are outside of a tolerance threshold), the method comprising:
identifying, by the one or more processors using the AI model, one or more second pieces of building equipment to assist the one or more pieces of building equipment ([0257] - - shut a valve in an oil pipeline in response to a determination that a component downstream to the valve is failing); and
generating, by the one or more processors using the AI model, one or more updates to control strategies associated with the one or more pieces of building equipment to account for the one or more second pieces of building equipment ([0257] - - shut a valve in an oil pipeline in response to a determination that a component downstream to the valve is failing).
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. US 2021/0360070 (hereinafter Cella) in view of BEHBAHANI et al. US 2011/0046792 (hereinafter BEHBAHANI).
Regarding claim 2, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Furusho does not explicitly teach: the AI model comprises a generative AI model.
However, BEHBAHANI teaches: an AI model comprises a generative AI model ([0104] - - generative large language model).
Cella and BEHBAHANI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to processing data using AI models.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Cella, and incorporating a generative large language model, as taught by BEHBAHANI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable fast adaptation on challenging tasks, as suggested by BEHBAHANI ([0016]).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 3, Cella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Furusho does not explicitly teach: the AI model comprises a generative large language model.
However, BEHBAHANI teaches: an AI model comprises a generative large language model ([0104] - - generative large language model).
Cella and BEHBAHANI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to processing data using AI models.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Cella, and incorporating a generative large language model, as taught by BEHBAHANI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable fast adaptation on challenging tasks, as suggested by BEHBAHANI ([0016]).
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights