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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 12/30/2025 filing with the Office. Claim 1, 11, and 19 were amended. No claims were newly added, canceled, or withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that a human, even with the aid of pen and paper, cannot practically and accurately manage equipment schedules across multiple remote building sites using the claimed multi-site system that: automatically discovers new building equipment connected across a distributed network, identifies when portfolio level equipment schedules transmitted from a cloud-based server to remote sites have been customized locally at those remote sites, synchronizes schedule configurations between equipment at multiple geographically distributed building sites via gateways that communicate across a network, receives operational data from building equipment via controllers and formulates control commands in response to the received operational data in accordance with equipment calendars, maintains a server memory storing portfolio level equipment schedules that are distributed to one or more controllers at remote sites which control operation of corresponding building equipment, and transmits override commands from the cloud-based server across the network to return customized schedules at remote sites back to non-customized portfolio level equipment schedules - all while coordinating real-time equipment operations across multiple buildings through an automated system manager that facilitates synchronizing schedules between HVAC systems, lighting systems, and other building equipment distributed across multiple building sites. Remarks p.8-9
It is noted that the claimed invention in the previous Office action were rejected as being directed to an abstract idea – “certain methods of organizing human activity” not a mental process therefore Applicant’s arguments are not relevant to the rejection of the previous Office action or the current rejection. See 10/01/2025 OA page 2 at 5.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The amendment language makes explicit that commands have causal function causing return to operational state using the specific previously-transmitted schedule, not user requests to update schedules or user cancellation of unsaved schedule additions. Remarks p. 10.
Respectfully the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The instant specification discloses “Someone at the supervisory level is allowed to override one or more of the customized local equipment schedules and return to one or more non-customized local equipment schedule if desired.” (Spec. [6]) It further teaches “portfolio level user is allowed to override the changed portfolio level equipment schedule at the first remote site 14 and return to the portfolio level equipment schedule” (Spec. [25]). Finally “the supervisory level is allowed to override one or more of the customized local equipment schedules and return to one or more non-customized local equipment schedule” (spec. [30]).
The art of Gupta teaches “cancel any changes made by the user, the user will select the cancel button” (Gupta [239]) and “when entering the exception schedule or if the exception schedule is no longer desired, the user can cancel the addition by clicking on the cancel button” (Gupta [276]). Finally Gupta teaches “a user 1202 sending a request to the schedule manager 332 to update a schedule object” (Gupta [168]).
The limitation in question requires “transmit one or more override commands for reception by one or more remote sites, the override commands configured to cause one or more remote sites to override one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the corresponding remote site and return to the corresponding non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the one or more remote sites”
The art allows the system to return to the schedule – where exception (non-customized) is canceled or overridden. The system sends commands which it the same as transmitting. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Gupta does not disclose automatic server-side identification of remote customizations. Claim 1 requires that the server controller "automatically identify which of the portfolio level equipment schedules that have been transmitted across the network have been customized at the one or more remote sites," in other words, centralized monitoring where the server actively identifies which deployed schedules have been modified across potentially hundreds or thousands of remote sites. The passages cited by the Examiner merely describe the ability to create and distribute exceptions or modifications, but none disclose the server automatically identifying which transmitted schedules have been customized at remote sites. Gupta paragraph [0063] teaches the system manager pushing exceptions, which is distributing customizations from the central system, not identifying customizations that occurred at remote sites. Remarks p. 10.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Gupta teaches “memory 506 is further shown to include an equipment identifier 510, a new schedule identifier 512, an existing schedule identifier 514, a schedule creator 516, a schedule updater 518, a schedule distributor 520, a schedule deleter 522, a point creator 524, a point updater 526, a point distributor 528, a point deleter 530, and a list manager” (Gupta [109]). Gupta further teaches “new schedule identifier 512 is configured to determine whether equipment 340 on the system manager 202 includes a schedule that is not already included within the schedule manager” (Gupta [111]) and “processor 306 is configured to execute computer code or instructions stored in the memory 308 or received from other computer readable media (e.g., CDROM, network storage, a remote server, etc.).” Where the memory and remote server are interchangeable as disclosed.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have understood the teaching of Gupta would have rendered the limitation in question as anticipated. For these reasons the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-10 are to cloud-based server (machine), claims 11-18 are to a remote site (machine), and 19-20 are to a building control system (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 1 recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A cloud-based server, comprising:
a memory storing one or more portfolio level equipment schedules for use in controlling building control equipment at one or more remote sites;
a controller operatively coupled to the memory, the controller configured to:
transmit each of one or more of the portfolio level equipment schedules across a network for reception by one or more remote sites;
automatically identify which of the portfolio level equipment schedules that have been transmitted across the network have been customized at the one or more remote sites, resulting in one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules, and that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the corresponding remote site; and
transmit one or more override commands for reception by one or more remote sites, the override commands configured to cause one or more remote sites to override one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the corresponding remote site and return to the corresponding non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the one or more remote sites.
The crux of the invention is to allowing the site or portfolio user to control the operation of equipment based on changes made to the equipment schedule. The Office finds this to be managing personal behavior (e.g., managing personal behavior). Further since it is the user (e.g. site level user or the portfolio level user) that manually override the planned equipment schedule (Spec [4]). It is assumed that the decisions are made in the mind of the human. Thus, the invention is found to fall within the realm of abstraction. It is noted that the method uses a cloud-based server nominally to apply the abstract idea - instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 11 recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
11. A remote site, comprising:
a gateway for communicating with a remote server;
a Building Management System (BMS) operatively coupled to the gateway, the BMS including:
building control equipment;
a memory;
a controller operatively coupled to the building control equipment, the memory and the gateway, the controller configured to:
receive one or more portfolio level equipment schedules from the remote server via the gateway;
store the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules in the memory;
store one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules in the memory, wherein each of the one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules are customized from a corresponding one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules received from the remote server;
control the building control equipment based at least in part on one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules;
receive from the remote server via the gateway one or more override commands configured to cause the remote sites to override each of one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling the building control equipment with the corresponding one of the one or more non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the one or more remote sites; and
control the building control equipment based at least in part on the corresponding one of the one or more non-customized portfolio level equipment schedules.
First it is worth noting that the “remote site” when read in light of the specification (Spec. [19] and fig. 1 at 14a) and as claimed the “remote site” falls under the statutory category of a machine and does not include a physical location (e.g. brick and mortar). The crux of the invention is to allowing the site or portfolio user to control the operation of equipment based on changes made to the equipment schedule. The Office finds this to be managing personal behavior (e.g., managing personal behavior). Further since it is the user (e.g. site level user or the portfolio level user) that manually override the planned equipment schedule (Spec [4]). It is assumed that the decisions are made in the mind of the human. Thus, the invention is found to fall within the realm of abstraction. It is noted that the method uses a cloud-based server nominally to apply the abstract idea - instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 recites limitations that are a combination of claims 1 and 11 therefore the identified abstract idea of this claim also applies to claim 19 for the same reasons given with respect to the similar limitations.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving, storing and transmit elements of the claims are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al (US 2020/0379420 A1).
Claims 1
Gupta teaches a cloud-based server (Gupta [93] “server for system manager” and [99] “system manager 202 is further shown to communicate with a cloud application”), comprising:
a memory storing one or more portfolio level equipment schedules for use in controlling building control equipment at one or more remote sites (Gupta [109] “memory 506 is further shown to include an equipment identifier 510, a new schedule identifier 512, an existing schedule identifier 514, a schedule creator 516, a schedule updater 518, a schedule distributor 520, a schedule deleter 522, a point creator 524, a point updater 526, a point distributor 528, a point deleter 530, and a list manager”);
a controller operatively coupled to the memory (Gupta [108] “ memory 506 can be communicably connected to the processor”), the controller configured to:
transmit each of one or more of the portfolio level equipment schedules across a network for reception by one or more remote sites (Gupta [63] “a system manager that facilitates synchronizing schedules between equipment (e.g., HVAC systems, lighting systems, etc.) across multiple building sites”);
automatically identify which of the portfolio level equipment schedules that have been transmitted across the network have been customized at the one or more remote sites, resulting in one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules, and that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the corresponding remote site (Gupta [63] “system manager can also push new or modified schedules, or exceptions to those schedules”, where exception is the equivalent of the claimed customized, [89] “schedule configuration can include any type of schedule that the equipment 340 can follow (e.g. a weekly schedule or an exception to a schedule)”, [127] “exception events 604 include schedule events that occur on an irregular basis.”, [365] “ a user interface 4600 to overwrite an existing schedule with a new schedule via an enterprise connection is shown, according to some embodiments” and [109] “memory 506 is further shown to include an equipment identifier 510, a new schedule identifier 512, an existing schedule identifier 514, a schedule creator 516, a schedule updater 518, a schedule distributor 520, a schedule deleter 522, a point creator 524, a point updater 526, a point distributor 528, a point deleter 530, and a list manager”); and
transmit one or more override commands for reception by one or more remote sites, the override commands configured to cause one or more remote sites to override one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the corresponding remote site and return to the corresponding non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the one or more remote sites (Gupta [276] “when entering the exception schedule or if the exception schedule is no longer desired, the user can cancel the addition by clicking on the cancel button”, [168] “a user 1202 sending a request to the schedule manager 332 to update a schedule object (step 1204)” and [235] “if the new schedule is no longer desired, the user can cancel the addition by clicking on the cancel button” where cancel is the functional equivalent of the claimed override).
Claim 2
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
identify which if any of the transmitted portfolio level equipment schedules failed to be successfully received by the one or more remote sites (Gupta [4]); and
re-transmit the portfolio level equipment schedules that are identified as having failed to be successfully received by the one or more remote sites (Gupta [411]).
Claim 3
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more remote sites includes a gateway operatively coupled to the network for receiving one or more of the portfolio level equipment schedules transmitted by the controller (Gupta fig. 3, 5-7, and 15).
Claim 4
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 3, wherein each of the one or more remote sites includes one or more controllers operatively coupled to the gateway of the corresponding remote site, wherein each controller is configured to control building control equipment at the corresponding remote site based at least in part on one or more currently active equipment schedules, wherein the one or more currently active equipment schedules correspond to one or more of the portfolio level equipment schedules or one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta Gupta [369] and fig. 46).
Claim 5
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
display on a display one or more visual cues that visually indicate which of the portfolio level equipment schedules have been determined to be customized at the one or more remote sites (Gupta [367]).
Claim 6
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein the building control equipment at one or more of the remote sites comprises indoor lighting equipment and/or outdoor lighting equipment (Gupta [63], [201], [206], and [389]).
Claim 7
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein the building control equipment at one or more of the remote sites comprises heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment (Gupta [65-67]).
Claim 8
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein the building control equipment at one or more of the remote sites comprises security equipment (Gupta [125-127]).
Claim 9
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules comprises a weekly schedule (Gupta [105]).
Claim 10
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the cloud-based server of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules comprises a holiday schedule and/or a special event schedule (Gupta [127] and [325]).
Claim 11
Gupta teaches a remote site (Gupta [64]), comprising:
a gateway for communicating with a remote server (Gupta [72] and [83]);
a Building Management System (BMS) operatively coupled to the gateway (Gupta abstract), the BMS including:
building control equipment (Gupta abstract);
a memory (Gupta [84]);
a controller operatively coupled to the building control equipment, the memory and the gateway (Gupta [77-78], [80], and [370-371]), the controller configured to:
receive one or more portfolio level equipment schedules from the remote server via the gateway (Gupta abstract, [63] and fig. 4 and 14);
store the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules in the memory (Gupta [63]);
store one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules in the memory, wherein each of the one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules are customized from a corresponding one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules received from the remote server (Gupta [63], [89], [127], and [365]);
control the building control equipment based at least in part on one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta [125]);
receive from the remote server via the gateway one or more override commands configured to cause the remote site to override each of one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling the building control equipment with the corresponding one of the one or more non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the one or more remote sites (Gupta [364-365]); and
control the building control equipment based at least in part on the corresponding one of the one or more non-customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta [89] and [105-106]).
Claim 12
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to: report to the remote server via the gateway which of the portfolio level equipment schedules have been customized resulting in the one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta fig. 3, 5-7, and 15).
Claim 13
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to: report to the remote server via the gateway a successfully reception of each of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta [4] and [411]).
Claim 14
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein the building control equipment comprises indoor lighting equipment and/or outdoor lighting equipment (Gupta [63], [201], [206], and [389]).
Claim 15
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein the building control equipment comprises heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment (Gupta [65-67]).
Claim 16
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein the building control equipment comprises security equipment (Gupta [125-127]).
Claim 17
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein at least one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules comprises a weekly schedule.
Claim 18
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the remote site of claim 11, wherein at least one of the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules comprises a holiday schedule and/or a special event schedule (Gupta [127] and [325]).
Claim 19
Gupta teaches a building control system (Gupta abstract), comprising:
a server (Gupta [93] and [99]), including:
a server memory storing one or more portfolio level equipment schedules for use in controlling building control equipment at a remote site (Gupta [109]);
a server controller operatively coupled to the server memory (Gupta [108]), the server controller configured to:
transmit each of one or more of the portfolio level equipment schedules to the remote site (Gupta [63]);
automatically identify which of the portfolio level equipment schedules that have been transmitted to the remote site have been customized at the remote site, resulting in one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules, and are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the remote site (Gupta [63]), [89], [127], and [365]);
transmit one or more override commands for reception by the remote site, the override commands configured to cause the remote site to override one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling building control equipment at the remote site and return to the corresponding non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule previously transmitted to the remote site (Gupta [168] and [235]);
the remote site (Gupta [64]), including:
a gateway for communicating with the server (Gupta [72] and [83]);
a Building Management System (BMS) operatively coupled to the gateway, (Gupta abstract) the BMS including:
the building control equipment (Gupta abstract);
a BMS memory (Gupta [84]);
a BMS controller operatively coupled to the building control equipment (Gupta [77-78], [80], and [370-371]), the BMS memory and the gateway, the BMS controller configured to:
receive the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules from the remote server via the gateway (Gupta abstract, [63] and fig. 4 and 14);
store the one or more portfolio level equipment schedules in the BMS memory (Gupta [63]);
store the one or more customized portfolio level equipment schedules in the BMS memory (Gupta [63], [89], [127], and [365]);
control the building control equipment based at least in part on one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta [125]);
receive via the gateway the one or more commands transmitted by the server to override each of one or more of the customized portfolio level equipment schedules that are currently being used in controlling the building control equipment with the corresponding non-customized portfolio level equipment schedule (Gupta [364-365]); and
control the building control equipment based at least in part on the corresponding one of the one or more non-customized portfolio level equipment schedules (Gupta [89] and [105-106]).
Claim 20
Gupta teaches all the limitations of the building control system of claim 19, wherein the server controller is configured to:
identify which if any of the transmitted portfolio level equipment schedules failed to be successfully received by the remote site (Gupta [4]); and
re-transmit the portfolio level equipment schedules that are identified as having failed to be successfully received by the remote site (Gupta [411]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verfuerth et al (US 2009/0243517 A1) teaches establishing a schedule or listing of HIF lighting equipment in the facility to be turned-off in response to the instructions; the listing of equipment may include individual fixtures, or independent ballasts within a fixture, identified by a unique address recognized by the master controller; the fixtures may be groups of fixtures based on location or criticality to operation of the facility; the groups of fixtures may be specified in a cascading hierarchy of groups that are turned-off sequentially, or simultaneously, depending on an amount of electricity usage reduction, or the specific fixtures/ballasts, identified by the instructions.
Bartholic et al (US 2022/0030402 A1) teaches foregoing procedure can be remotely revised (e.g., modifications can be input via a remote compute device and sent to the environmental sensor apparatus, where they are automatically implemented), and tasks that are scheduled can be defined to include one or more associated conditional “override” instructions. In some implementations, a default set of tasks can include one or more “fallback” tasks that have been designated as “safe” to perform, or as less computationally complex, or as compatible with a low-power operating mode.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights