DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outcome" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the outcome" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig-Richardson US 2013/0173062.
Koenig-Richardson discloses:
1. A building system of a building including one or more memory devices that store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
store an entity database in the one or more memory devices, the entity database including a plurality of entities and a plurality of relationships, the plurality of entities associated with physical objects in the building and the plurality of relationships relating the physical objects (e.g., Fig. 3 #162, [0025], [0028], [0032]-[0033], [0041]: “All useful data is translated as necessary and coded for parsing by Process 2 (Record Logger) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0044]);
receive first data from a first device associated with the building and second data from a second device associated with the building, wherein the second device is part of a different system than the first device (e.g., [0028], Fig. 2 #122-140, Fig. 4 #180, [0047]);
ingest the first data and the second data into the entity database in one or more entities of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 4 #182, [0029]-[0033], [0037]: “The rules engine feeds the audit data, logging and also updates the database with the necessary data”, [0042]: “Changes of state and numerical quantifications are faithfully reproduced, and a record is generated with a Process 2 time stamp for distribution to Process 3 (State Reporter) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0048]); and
generate synthesized data that identifies a building event by performing a machine learning analysis on the first data and the second data, the building event associated with at least one of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 3 #164,166, Fig. 4 #184,186, [0033], [0049]-[0050]).
2. The building system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to input the synthesized data into a building device (e.g. Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
3. The building system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to provide an instruction to achieve an outcome responsive to an identification of the building event based at least in part on the machine learning analysis (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
4. The building system of claim 1, wherein the generating synthesized data includes evaluating a probability of the building event (e.g., [0049]: “The processing system may include existing or anticipate state values for relations between the varying processing systems”, [0054]).
5. The building system of claim 1, wherein the generating synthesized data includes parsing data received from an external device (e.g., [0041]).
6. The building system of claim 1, wherein the building event is identified in response to a determination that the first data meets a first rule indicative of the building event and the second data meets a second rule indicative of the building event (e.g., [0030]: “two rules engines 156a and 156b”).
7. The building system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to query a subsystem of the building for information associated with an area in which the subsystem is located (e.g., [0040]: “Data in any format is acquired from any of a multiplicity of devices, dissimilar in terms of make, model, manufacturer, and function…The connection is made, initiated, or maintained by means of keep alive, session initiated protocol, polling, associated server interface, or any other method more particularly suitable to any such device”).
8. The building system of claim 7, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to operate a building device based on a result of the query (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
9. The building system of claim 1, wherein the outcome is different based on a location associated with the building event (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
10. A method, comprising:
storing an entity database in the one or more memory devices, the entity database including a plurality of entities and a plurality of relationships, the plurality of entities associated with physical objects and the plurality of relationships relating the physical objects (e.g., Fig. 3 #162, [0025], [0028], [0032]-[0033], [0041]: “All useful data is translated as necessary and coded for parsing by Process 2 (Record Logger) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0044]);
receiving first data from a first device and second data from a second device, wherein the second device is part of a different system than the first device (e.g., [0028], Fig. 2 #122-140, Fig. 4 #180, [0047]);
ingesting the first data and the second data into the entity database in one or more entities of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 4 #182, [0029]-[0033], [0037]: “The rules engine feeds the audit data, logging and also updates the database with the necessary data”, [0042]: “Changes of state and numerical quantifications are faithfully reproduced, and a record is generated with a Process 2 time stamp for distribution to Process 3 (State Reporter) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0048]); and
generating synthesized data that identifies an event by performing a machine learning analysis on the first data and the second data, the event associated with at least one of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 3 #164,166, Fig. 4 #184,186, [0033], [0049]-[0050]).
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising inputting the synthesized data into a device (e.g. Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
12. The method of claim 10, further comprising providing an instruction to achieve an outcome responsive to an identification of the event based at least in part on the machine learning analysis (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
13. The method of claim 10, wherein the generating synthesized data includes evaluating a probability of the event (e.g., [0049]: “The processing system may include existing or anticipate state values for relations between the varying processing systems”, [0054]).
14. The method of claim 10, wherein the generating synthesized data includes parsing data received from an external device (e.g., [0041]).
15. The method of claim 10, wherein the event is identified in response to a determination that the first data meets a first rule indicative of the event and the second data meets a second rule indicative of the event (e.g., [0030]: “two rules engines 156a and 156b”).
16. The method of claim 10, further comprising querying a subsystem for information associated with an area in which the subsystem is located (e.g., [0040]: “Data in any format is acquired from any of a multiplicity of devices, dissimilar in terms of make, model, manufacturer, and function…The connection is made, initiated, or maintained by means of keep alive, session initiated protocol, polling, associated server interface, or any other method more particularly suitable to any such device”).
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising operating a device based on a result of the query (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
18. The method of claim 10, wherein the outcome is different based on a location associated with the event (e.g., Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
19. A system of a building including:
one or more memory devices that store instructions thereon (e.g., Fig. 2 #120); and
one or more processors (e.g., Fig. 2 #120) to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processors to:
store a digital twin in the one or more memory devices, the digital twin including a plurality of entities and a plurality of relationships, the plurality of entities associated with physical objects in the building and the plurality of relationships relating the physical objects (e.g., Fig. 3 #162, [0025], [0028], [0032]-[0033], [0039]: “integrating real-time data from a multiplicity of dissimilar electronic and electromechanical devices for the purpose of presenting, recording, and simulating”, [0041]: “All useful data is translated as necessary and coded for parsing by Process 2 (Record Logger) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0044], [0046]: “simulate real-time events”);
receive first data from a first device associated with the building and second data from a second device associated with the building, wherein the second device is part of a different system than the first device (e.g., [0028], Fig. 2 #122-140, Fig. 4 #180, [0047]);
ingest the first data and the second data into the digital twin in one or more entities of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 4 #182, [0029]-[0033], [0037]: “The rules engine feeds the audit data, logging and also updates the database with the necessary data”, [0042]: “Changes of state and numerical quantifications are faithfully reproduced, and a record is generated with a Process 2 time stamp for distribution to Process 3 (State Reporter) and Process 4 (Relational Database)”, [0048]); and
generate synthesized data that identifies a building event by performing a machine learning analysis on the first data and the second data, the building event associated with at least one of the plurality of entities (e.g., Fig. 3 #164,166, Fig. 4 #184,186, [0033], [0049]-[0050]).
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to input the synthesized data into a building device (e.g. Fig. 4 #188, [0034], [0051], [0054]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,774,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully anticipated by the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
08/16/26
Prosecution Insights