DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed Mach 05, 2026.
Claim 5, 12, 19, 20, 29- 32 are amended.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 and 15-18 are canceled
Claims 7 and 14 are Originals.
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 .
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 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20- 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 12, 14, 25-28 is to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 5, 7 and 22-24 recite a method (i.e., a process), and claims 19, 20, 29-32 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 5, 12 and 19 (claim 5 being representative):
A method of onboarding a Building Management System (BMS), the method comprising:
receiving, by a server implemented in a client environment, a system command for enabling recording of historical data associated with a set of data points from a plurality of data points pertaining to the BMS implemented in the client environment;
identifying, by the server based on the system command, one or more subsystems of the BMS that are corresponding to the set of data points; and
transmitting, by the server, an enable history message to one or more cloud connectors corresponding to the one or more subsystems of the BMS for enabling recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points, wherein the enable history message comprises a gateway identity associated with the one or more subsystems, an enable history command, and information associated with the set of data points that are to be captured at the one or more subsystems, and wherein, based on the gateway identity, the one or more cloud connectors transmit the enable history command to the corresponding one or more subsystems to automatically enable recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points at the BMS and to store the recorded historical data at the corresponding ones of the one or more subsystems.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, receiving, identifying and transmitting data by a server. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including receiving, obtaining, publishing, generating, identifying, enabling, recording, identifying and transmitting, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above relate to the rules of instructions pertaining to recording a historical data, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0009] – [0012] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements: Server, Building management system (BMS), cloud connectors, subsystems.
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements: Processors
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements: Computer-readable medium.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0049] of applicant’s specification as filed.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19-32 contain additional steps that further narrow the abstract idea above. Some of the dependent claims also contains further additional elements:
Claim 7 and 14 recites the following additional elements: cloud connectors, Cloud IoT service.
Claim 21 recites the following additional elements: cloud tools to an IoT service.
Similar to above these are generic computing elements facilitating the task of the abstract idea, whether viewed alone or combination, these does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. The claims are ineligible.
Accordingly, claims 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19-32 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20- 32, prior art does not teach nor suggest a method as claimed. Certain prior art discloses a method of Building Management System (BMS), identifying and transmission by the server, (Chakraborty). Other art teaches the cloud connector with the BMS, (Duraisingh). Other art teaches the BMS comparing the predetermined interval or threshold values, and gateway identity (Papadopoulos) and the other art teaches a method for developing a facility safety management and maintenance system using IoT, an AI quantitative determination process; and a facility management framework process, (Soo). Other art teaches enabling history message and capturing one or more systems (Jayathirtha)
The closest NPL is Sheng et al, Recent Advances in Industrial Wireless Sensor Networks Toward Efficient Management in IoT, 2015/05/28, IEEE Access (Volume: 3, 2015, Page(s): 622-637).
However, the cited prior art of record does not teach nor suggest the combination of elements, within instant claims 5, 12 and 19: receiving, by a server implemented in a client environment, a system command for enabling recording of historical data associated with a set of data points from a plurality of data points pertaining to the BMS implemented in the client environment; identifying, by the server based on the system command, one or more subsystems of the BMS that are corresponding to the set of data points; and transmitting, by the server, an enable history message to one or more cloud connectors corresponding to the one or more subsystems of the BMS for enabling recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points, wherein the enable history message comprises a gateway identity associated with the one or more subsystems, an enable history command, and information associated with the set of data points that are to be captured at the one or more subsystems, and wherein, based on the gateway identity, the one or more cloud connectors transmit the enable history command to the corresponding one or more subsystems to automatically enable recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points at the BMS and to store the recorded historical data at the corresponding ones of the one or more subsystems.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20- 32, based on their dependency to independent claims 5, 12 and 19, and containing further limiting elements, inherit the distinguishment of those claims and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art. These claims are also distinguished over the prior art.
Accordingly, all claims, that is, claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 and 20- 32, are distinguished over prior art.
Response to Argument
In response to the argument filled on March 05, 2026, on page 9-15, regarding the 101 rejections, Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the amended independent claims recite subject matter that is not directed towards an abstract idea. Applicant further argues that, one or more features of amended independent claim 5 recites "transmitting, by the server, an enable history message to one or more cloud connectors corresponding to the one or more subsystems of the BMS for enabling recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points, wherein the enable history message comprises a gateway identity associated with the one or more subsystems, an enable history command, and information associated with the set of data points that are to be captured at the one or more subsystems, and wherein, based on the gateway identity, the one or more cloud connectors transmit the enable history command to the corresponding one or more subsystems to automatically enable recording of the historical data associated with the set of data points at the BMS and to store the recorded historical data at the corresponding ones of the one or more subsystems"
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the aspect of transmitting, enabling, recording, capturing and automating a data to a cloud connector corresponding to the one or more subsystems of the BMS the Examiner viewed as steps of the identified abstract idea in the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis and the cloud connectors, subsystems of the BMS as an additional element in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the one or more steps recited above in amended independent claim 5 cannot be performed or executed by the human mind, and therefore the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, amended claim 5 recites “a distributed, machine-implemented command execution workflow in a Building Management System (BMS) onboarding environment, in which: (i) a server implemented in a client environment receives a system command for enabling historical recording for a set of BMS data points; (ii) the server identifies one or more BMS subsystems corresponding to the selected set of data points; and (iii) the server transmits an enable history message to one or more cloud connectors corresponding to the identified subsystems, wherein the enable history message comprises a gateway identity, an enable history command, and information associated with the set of data points to be captured at the subsystems. Further, amended claim 5 recites that, using/based on the gateway identity, the cloud connectors transmit the enable history command to the corresponding subsystems to automatically enable recording of historical data for the selected data points at the BMS and to store the recorded historical data.”
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the aspect of receiving, identifying, transmitting, capturing, recording and storing a data in Building Management System (BMS) workflow, is merely describing a mental process that could practically be performed in a human mind with the aid of a pen or paper. A person with pen or paper would be able to receive, identify, transmit, record or store a data. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed system and method (i) generates and propagates a machine-interpretable system command from a cloud/IoT orchestration layer to the client environment; (ii) determines subsystem-to-connector associations and transmits an enable history message that includes a gateway ID and point capture information; (iii) causes the cloud connectors to forward the enable history command to the correct subsystem(s) using the gateway identity; and (iv) causes the subsystem(s), in response to the enable history command, to begin capturing/recording historical values for the selected data points, with the historical data being stored in the client environment for later retrieval and transmission.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the aspect of generating, determining, forwarding and commanding, correcting, identifying, responding, capturing, recording, selecting, storing, retrieving, and transmitting of data, is merely describing a mental process that could practically be performed in a human mind with the aid of a pen or paper. A person with pen or paper would be able to generate, determine, forward and command, correct, identify, respond, capture, record, select, store, retrieve, and transmit data. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed toward enhancing the automation and technical reliability of onboarding a Building Management System (BMS) by requiring a particular distributed machine-control workflow that uses a gateway-addressed enable history message to effect a concrete operational change at BMS subsystems, namely, automatic enablement of historical data recording and storage for a selected set of BMS data points.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that identifying the subsystems by a server, transmitting a message that includes a gateway identity, history command, and information identifying the set of data points to be captured and automatically recording and storing the selected historical data for subsequent use by the cloud connectors are merely a generic instruction to transmit information with no technical improvement rather an improvement to the abstract idea using generic technology. See Applicant specification [0069].
Applicant argues that the amended independent claims recite specific technical features including gateway-identity-based routing of an enable history command through cloud connectors to specific BMS subsystems, automatic enablement of subsystem recording, and storage of the recorded historical data that collectively constitute significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the gateway-identity-based routing, cloud connectors to specific BMS subsystems, automatic enablement of subsystem recording, and storage of the recorded historical data is/are merely technological improvement with no technical improvement rather an improvement to the abstract idea using generic technology in the way BMS systems are onboarded and configured for historical data collection; satisfying Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. See Applicant Specification [0069]
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite an inventive concept because they are directed to a specific technological improvement in Building Management System (BMS) onboarding, rather than a generic implementation of an abstract idea on a computer. In particular, the claims require a gateway-identity-based command routing mechanism through cloud connectors that automatically enables historical data recording and storage at corresponding BMS subsystems. This ordered combination of features improves the technical onboarding process itself by eliminating manual, site-based configuration and enabling automated, distributed control of subsystem recording behavior.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the onboarding of the Building Management System (BMS) using specific technological workflow such as a gateway-identity-based command, automatic enabling of historical data, recording and storing the correspondence BMS subsystems is/are merely generic computing elements tools. See Applicant specification [0010].
The Examiner maintains these claims recite an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
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 VICTOR ESONU whose telephone number is (571)272-4883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5pm.
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, Monfeldt Sarah can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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, vis it: 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.
/VICTOR ESONU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights