DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/10/2024 and 2/24/2026 were filed 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
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(s) 1, 4-6, 15, 18, 19, 32, 33, 35-37, 40, 51, 53, 57 58, 60, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmus-Vorrath et al (WO 2020/037055 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses a method for controlling a facility (page 33, section [0138] – page 35, section [0144], Figure 7, re: BMS), the method comprising: receiving an input from a user indicating that a first state of a device of the facility is to be altered to a second state (page 34, section [0141], Figure 7, “790,” re: occupant can use a wall switch to change between first and second tint levels), wherein the input is received through a network (page 34, section [0140]-[0141], Figure 7, “701,” re: wall switches “790” are in communication the devices (i.e. tintable windows) and with the master controller “703” and are therefore “networked”), but does not specifically disclose predicting a third state for the device at a future time at least in part by using a machine learning model that considers the input from the user; and (I) suggesting the third state and/or (II) conditioning the device to be at the third state at the future time.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable for said method to comprise predicting a third state for the device at a future time at least in part by using a machine learning model that considers the input from the user; and (I) suggesting the third state and/or (II) conditioning the device to be at the third state at the future time for the purpose of generating short-term forecasts on a live, rolling basis (page 59, section [0231] & pages 61-62, section [0237], Figure 25, “2710, 2786, 2720” re: logic that uses machine learning to map sequence to sequence predictions of weather forecasts to control tint levels, which takes into account a user-defined (i.e. input) duration of historical weather data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Rasmus-Vorrath et al to comprise as claimed, since he teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of generating short-term forecasts on a live, rolling basis (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmus-Vorrath et al further teaches wherein suggesting the third state comprises (a) suggesting conditioning the device to be at the third state at the future time and/or (b) suggesting conditioning the device to be at the third state at a plurality of future times responsive to determining that a set of conditions have occurred, which set of conditions are under which the input was received (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches said method comprising providing a user response to the suggestion to the machine learning model (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232], re: ignoring command changes whose duration is less than a user defined number of minutes).
Regarding claim 6, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein the machine learning model constructs a training sample based at least in part on the input received, and wherein the training sample is usable to generate future predictions by the machine learning model (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
Regarding claim 15, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses wherein the input is received under a set of conditions, and wherein conditioning the device to be at the third state at the future time is responsive to detection of the set of conditions occurring at the future time (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
Regarding claim 18, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses wherein the machine learning model considers the input at least in part by causing the device to be conditioned at the third state at the future time (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
Regarding claim 19, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses wherein the machine learning model considers the input at least in part by determining whether one or more parameters associated with the input match one or more parameters of (i) a rule-based pattern generated by the machine learning model and/or (ii) a heuristic used by the machine learning model (page 59, section [0231] – page 60, section [0232]).
In regard to claim 32, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses a method for controlling a facility (page 33, section [0138] – page 35, section [0144], Figure 7, re: BMS), the method comprising: obtaining from a user an input indicative of a preference associated with a present state of a device of the facility under a set of conditions (page 34, section [0141], Figure 7, “790”), wherein the input is obtained through a network (page 34, section [0140]-[0141], Figure 7, “701,” re: wall switches “790” are in communication the devices (i.e. tintable windows) and with the master controller “703” and are therefore “networked”); and transmitting through the network one or more signals associated with an action (page 35, section [0144]), but does not specifically disclose updating a database to include the input of the user; identifying, based at least in part on the database, an action to be associated with the set of conditions.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable to update a database to include the input of the user; identifying, based at least in part on the database, an action to be associated with the set of conditions for the purpose of model updating that employs periodic input feature filtering (page 97, section [0383] – page 98, section [0388], Figures 30 & 31, re: User input defines the number of features to be retained from the original (e.g. 200+ features)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Rasmus-Vorrath et al to include updating a database to include the input of the user; identifying, based at least in part on the database, an action to be associated with the set of conditions since he teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of model updating that employs periodic input feature filtering.
Regarding claim 33, Rasmus-Vorrath et al further teaches wherein the input comprises feedback from the user regarding the present state of the device (page 98, section [0388]).
Regarding claim 35, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the action comprises suggesting conditioning the device to be at a different state other than the present state at a future time.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the actions to comprise suggesting conditioning the device to be at a different state other than the present state at a future time for the purpose of providing a tint command override (page 62, section [0238]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Rasmus-Vorrath et al for the action to comprise suggesting conditioning the device to be at a different state other than the present state at a future time since he teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of providing a tint command override.
Regarding claim 36, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein suggestion of the conditioning is provided to a user other than the user from whom the input is obtained.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations (page 39, section [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the suggestion of the conditioning of Rasmus-Vorrath et al to be provided to a user other than the user from whom the input is obtained since Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations.
Regarding claim 37, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the action to be associated with the set of conditions is identified at least in part by identifying (i) a rule-based pattern and/or (ii) heuristic associated with the set of conditions.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable for actions associated with a set of conditions is identified by identifying a rule-based pattern for the purpose of generating short-term forecasts on a live, rolling basis (page 59, section [0231]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the action to be associated with the set of conditions to be identified at least in part by identifying (i) a rule-based pattern and/or (ii) heuristic associated with the set of conditions since Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of generating short-term forecasts on a live, rolling basis.
Regarding claim 40, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the action is identified based at least in part on input obtained from a plurality of users other than the user.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations (page 39, section [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the action of Rasmus-Vorrath et al to be identified based at least in part on input obtained from a plurality of users other than the user since Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations.
In regard to claim 51, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses a method for controlling a facility (page 33, section [0138] – page 35, section [0144], Figure 7, re: BMS), the method comprising: receiving an input from a user, which input is indicative of a preference associated with a state of a device of the facility (page 34, section [0141], Figure 7, “790”), which input is received through a network (page 34, section [0140], Figure 7, “701”), but does not specifically comprise: determining whether to alter the state of the device based at least in part (i) on the input and (ii) on a user permission scheme, wherein the determination of whether to alter the state of the device results in a positive determination or in a negative determination; and using the positive determination to alter the state of the device.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein it is desirable for said method to comprise said steps for the purpose of model updating that employs periodic input feature filtering (page 97, section [0384]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Rasmus-Vorrath et al to comprise: determining whether to alter the state of the device based at least in part (i) on the input and (ii) on a user permission scheme, wherein the determination of whether to alter the state of the device results in a positive determination or in a negative determination; and using the positive determination to alter the state of the device since he teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of model updating that employs periodic input feature filtering.
Regarding claim 53, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein the positive determination occurs in response to determining that the input indicates change of the state of the device of the facility (page 97, lines 24-26) and the user has permission to alter the state of the device (page 98, lines 30-31, re: user input defines the number of features to be retained).
Regarding claim 57, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses wherein the device is an environmental conditioning system component, a security system component, a health system component, an electrical system component, a communication system component, and/or a personnel convection system component (page 34, section [0140], re: tintable windows).
Regarding claims 58, 60, and 61, Rasmus-Vorrath et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the user permission scheme varies over time; wherein the user permission scheme is based at least in part on a role of the user within an organization; or wherein the user permission scheme is based at least in part on input from a plurality of users other than the user.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations (page 39, section [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention for the user permission scheme to vary over time; for the user permission scheme to based at least in part on a role of the user within an organization; or for the user permission scheme to be based at least in part on input from a plurality of users other than the user since Rasmus-Vorrath et al teaches wherein multiple users can provide conditioning in order to review and provide input to change space configurations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 62 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 7: a method for controlling a facility as claimed, specifically wherein the facility is a first facility, wherein the user is a first user, and wherein the future predictions (i) are related to a second facility other than the first facility and/or (ii) are related to a second user other than the first user.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 62: a method for controlling a facility as claimed, specifically wherein the user permission scheme indicates that the user is not permitted to alter the state of the device in response to determining that a majority of the plurality of users disagree with the input indicative of the preference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 5, 2026