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 .
1. Claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-10, 9, 12, 16-20 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 1, recites “the feedback” line 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, recites “the one or more type of feedback” line 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, recites “the types of feedback” line 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, recites “the feedback type” line 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites “the feedback” line 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites “the feedback” line 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “positive feedback” in claims 12 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “positive feedback” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification dose not provides a standard or recognized measure for the term so that one of ordinary skill can determine its scope.
The term “user mood” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “user mood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification dose not provides a standard or recognized measure for the term so that one of ordinary skill can determine its scope..
As per claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claims 1, 11 and 16. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
Applicant may overcome the rejection by amend the claims or explain the terms by referring to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building;
processing the user feedback data using an algorithm applying one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP), computer vision, and machine learning; and
determining, based on the processing, one or more of a type of user feedback or a space of the one or more spaces associated with the feedback.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. See
MPEP 2106.03. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The step of “processing the user feedback data using an algorithm applying one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP), computer vision, and machine learning”; When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, not tied to a specific technological improvement, it falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
The step of “determining, based on the processing, one or more of a type of user feedback or a space of the one or more spaces associated with the feedback”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (b) and (c) is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites one additional element “user device” for receiving user feedback, The additional element of “receiving data” from user device is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to use for the mathematical concept limitation of “processing” and the mental process limitation of “determining…” See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, receiving data is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). Thus, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. Additional elements in limitation (a) were considered insignificant extra-solution activities (mere receiving data) in Step 2A, Prong Two.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “user device” to receive data and perform the process and determine steps do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the additional elements individually or in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept; so, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a generic instruction to “apply” the judicial exception. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, claims 11 and16 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1 Thus, the independent of claims 1, 11 and 19 are not patentable eligible.
As the dependent claims 2-9, 12-15 and 17-20 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 1, 11 and 16, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 2 recite “associating the one or more type of feedback with the one or more spaces”, is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 3, recite ”taking an action based on the type of feedback” without define the action, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification, Spec. Page 9, Par. 3, and claim 4, “The action may include categorizing the feedback and identifying one or more appropriate maintenance technicians” and as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 4, recite “the action comprises categorizing the feedback and identifying one or more appropriate maintenance technicians based on skill set aligned with the feedback type”, is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 5, recite “ the user feedback data comprises image data”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 6, recite “the processing comprises applying image processing to identify one or more of a specific location and a user's mood or disposition” is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 7, recite receiving, from the plurality of user devices, GPS data. which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 8, recite “ identifying one or more spaces of the building associated with the user” feedback using the GPS data”, is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 9, recite “adjusting a determined location of the feedback based on the processed user feedback”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 12, recite “the user feedback data comprises at least one comfort data, maintenance request data, and positive feedback data”(collecting data), which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim13, recite “map is provided to a manager's device” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 14 and 18, recite “the map is adjusted to reflect changes in the feedback data over time”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 15 and 19, recite “the model is based on one or more of a LIDAR scan, a 2-D floor plan, and a 3-D building model” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim17, recite “the map associates the user feedback data with the one or more spaces of the building using a model of an interior of the building”,
Claim 20, recite “displaying the map on a screen of a device”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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) 1-3 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wells (US 2014/0358291).
Regarding claim 1, Wells discloses receiving, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building ([0044], collecting feedback from a user regarding the user's comfort under current environmental conditions of a space);
processing the user feedback data using an algorithm applying one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP), computer vision, and machine learning ([0044], the processor 64 may learn the indoor conditions that will make the user "comfortable" based on the user's feedback); and
determining, based on the processing, one or more of a type of user feedback or a space of the one or more spaces associated with the feedback ([0055] The processor 174 may be further programmed to identify one or more conditions or range of conditions under which the user is expected to be comfortable, based at least in part on the information collected from the user via the user interface 180 and/or in accordance with a user's comfort profile).
Regarding claim 2, Well discloses associating the one or more type of feedback with the one or more spaces ([0003], HVAC controllers that control one or more environmental conditions within a building based on user feedback).
Regarding claim 3, Wells discloses taking an action based on the type of feedback [0070], (based on the user feedback , providing commands to control an HVAC system, wherein the one or more commands are configured to cause the HVAC system to achieve the one or more comfort conditions inside of a building).
Regarding claim 7, Wells discloses receiving, from the plurality of user devices, GPS data ([0059], user's remote device 62 that may be indicative of its location relative to the HVAC controller 18 (e.g. GPS data).
Regarding claim 8, Wells discloses identifying one or more spaces of the building associated with the user feedback using the GPS data processor 64 may be configured to receive data from the user's remote device 62 that may be indicative of its location relative to the HVAC controller 18 (e.g. GPS data).
Regarding claim 9, Wells discloses adjusting a determined location of the feedback based on the processed user feedback ([0029], a user updated in response to a User’s request and/or updated in accordance with a user’s comfort profile. A user’s comfort profile may be specific to a user, and may include conditions under which the user is expected to be comfortable).
Regarding claims 10, Wells discloses the adjusting a determined location comprises adjusting output of a climate control system (Abstract, The HVAC control system may use the information collected from the user to control).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 4-6 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US 20140358291) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20070219645 A1).
Regarding claim 4-6 Wells discloses the limitations of discloses claim 1 and 3, but fails to disclose the limitations of claim 4. However, Thomas discloses such limitation as follow:
Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses the action comprises categorizing the feedback and identifying one or more appropriate maintenance technicians based on skill set aligned with the feedback type ([0038], determine the status of building 126 by reviewing the data from all of the BCDs within building 126 and by using artificial intelligence algorithms, assess the state of building 126. For example, if building control processor 44 determined that the problem was a faulty BCD, a repairman icon may be shown outside the building, thus enabling the user to contact a repairman).) .
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses the user feedback data comprises image data ([0029]-[0031], the remote BCD database 47 include the status of the BCD and a pictorial representation of it).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas discloses the processing comprises applying image processing to identify one or more of a specific location and a user's mood or disposition ([0040]-[0043], 0029] A personnel database 45 may contain information about certain persons who regularly enter the buildings 20 and 32. Personnel database 45 may include general information about a person such as height, weight, and hair color. It may also include the RFID badge number assigned to that person. Further, the database 45 may include a picture of the person. There may be sensors about the building able to track and/or identify the person).
Wells and Thomas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to Building management system. 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/system, as taught by Wells and incorporating building automation control, as taught by Thomas, in order to maximize the efficiency, minimize energy cost and protect the home automation devices by using a real time sensor to adjust the parameter-based user feedback.
Regarding claim 11, Well discloses receiving, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building ([0048], collecting feedback from a user regarding the user's comfort under current environmental conditions of a space);
Well fails to discloses aggregating the user feedback data (user profile) and associating the feedback data with the one or more spaces of the building based on a model of an interior of the building ; and providing a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building.
Thomas discloses aggregating the user feedback data (user profile) and associating the feedback data with the one or more spaces of the building based on a model of an interior of the building (Abstract, information regarding the location and status of the sensors, control devices, and the like, which may be points of interest, may be mapped on the virtual depiction or model of the building); and
providing a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building ([0036], [0043], By allowing the user to virtually move through the building viewing information from BCDs).
Wells and Thomas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to Building management system. 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/system, as taught by Wells and incorporating building automation control, as taught by Thomas, in order to maximize the efficiency, minimize energy cost and protect the home automation devices by using a real time sensor to adjust the parameter-based user feedback.
Regarding claim 12, Thomas discloses the user feedback data comprises at least one comfort data, maintenance request data, and positive feedback data ([0038], determined that the problem was a faulty BCD, are repairman icon may be shown outside the building, thus enabling the user to contact a repairman) .
Regarding claim 13, Thomas discloses the map is provided to a manager's device ([0034], remote computer).
Regarding claims 14, Thomas discloses the map is adjusted to reflect changes in the feedback data over time ([0034] A 3-D visual depiction of the status of a BCD may vary based upon the type of BCD).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas discloses the model is based on one or more of a LIDAR scan, a 2-D floor plan, and a 3-D building model (Abstract, [0054], the model is displayed in a 3-D format, 3-D rendering format or a 2-D model although the images provided to the display may be presented with a 3-D perspective, i.e., a 3-D rendering for a 2-D display or viewing).
Regarding claims 16, Wells discloses providing user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building ([0048], collecting feedback from a user regarding the user's comfort under current environmental conditions of a space), wherein the user feedback data comprises one or more of comfort data, maintenance request data, or positive feedback data ([0055], make the user "comfortable" based on the user's feedback).
Wells fails to disclose receiving a map based on a model, the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building.
Thomas discloses Page 70 of 72Attorney Docket No. CRC-008/00US 32235/31PATENT APPLICATIONreceiving a map based on a model (0099], building model 205), the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building ([0036]]-[0040], Abstract, the user can reviewing the data from all of the BCDs within building 126 and by using artificial intelligence algorithms, assess the state of building 126).
Wells and Thomas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to Building management system. 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/system, as taught by Wells and incorporating building automation control, as taught by Thomas, in order to maximize the efficiency, minimize energy cost and protect the home automation devices by using a real time sensor to adjust the parameter-based user feedback.
Regarding claims 17, Thomas discloses the map associates the user feedback data with the one or more spaces of the building using a model of an interior of the building (abstract, information regarding the location and status of the sensors, control devices, and the like, which may be points of interest, may be mapped on the virtual depiction or model of the building).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas discloses the map is further adjusted to reflect changes in the feedback data over time ([0034] A 3-D visual depiction of the status of a BCD may vary based upon the type of BCD).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas discloses the model is based on at least of a LIDAR scan, a 2-D floor plan, and a 3-D building model (Abstract, [0054], the model is displayed in a 3-D format, 3-D rendering format or a 2-D model although the images provided to the display may be presented with a 3-D perspective, i.e., a 3-D rendering for a 2-D display or viewing).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses displaying the map on the screen of a device (Abstract, a display for showing a model of the building).
Double Patenting
6. 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 1-5, 8-11, 17-22 and 24-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 394,462. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the parent US Patent has similar limitation and not patentably distinct.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 of the instant application of are discloses in the dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 18-22 and 24-27 of the parent US Patent. .
Please see below for the mapping in the table, the corresponding limitations between the independent claims of the instant application and parent US Patent:
Instant Application 18/798,393
Parent US Patent 11,394,462
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building;
processing the user feedback data using an algorithm applying one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP), computer vision, and machine learning; and
determining, based on the processing, one or more of a type of user feedback or a space of the one or more spaces associated with the feedback.
1. A method for providing geolocation-based building management in a crowdsourcing platform, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server system of the crowdsourcing platform, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data reports related to one or more spaces of a building;
processing the user feedback data reports by the server system using one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP) or computer vision;
determining, by the server system, based at least in part on the processing, a type of user feedback and a space of the one or more spaces associated with each user feedback data report;
aggregating, by the server system, user feedback data reports of a given type associated with a given space of the building based on a model of an interior of the building; and
providing, by the server system, a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the aggregated user feedback data reports associated with a representation of the given space of the building.
11. A method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building;
aggregating the user feedback data and associating the feedback data with the one or more spaces of the building based on a model of an interior of the building; and
providing a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building.
17. A system for providing geolocation-based building management in a crowdsourcing platform, the system comprising: a server configured to communicate with and exchange data with a plurality of user devices, the server comprising a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the server to:
receive, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data reports related to one or more spaces of a building; process the user feedback data reports using one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP) or computer vision; determine, based at least in part on the processing, a type of user feedback and a space of the one or more spaces associated with each user feedback data report;
aggregate user feedback data reports of a given type associated with a given space of the building based on a model of an interior of the building; and
provide a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the aggregated user feedback data reports associated with a representation of the given space of the building
16. A method comprising:
providing user feedback data related to one or more spaces of a building, wherein the user feedback data comprises one or more of comfort data, maintenance request data, or positive feedback data; and
receiving a map based on a model, the map comprising indications of the user feedback data associated with a representation of the one or more spaces of the building.
1. A method for providing geolocation-based building management in a crowdsourcing platform, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server system of the crowdsourcing platform, from a plurality of user devices, user feedback data reports related to one or more spaces of a building; processing the user feedback data reports by the server system using one or more of Natural Language Processing (NLP) or computer vision; determining, by the server system, based at least in part on the processing, a type of user feedback and a space of the one or more spaces associated with each user feedback data report;
aggregating, by the server system, user feedback data reports of a given type associated with a given space of the building based on a model of an interior of the building; and
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the type of user feedback comprises at least one of comfort data, maintenance request data, or positive feedback data.
providing, by the server system, a map based on the model to one or more user devices, the map comprising indications of the aggregated user feedback data reports associated with a representation of the given space of the building.
Citation Pertinent prior art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Busch (US20200302480A1) discloses a computing system is configured to receive location data from a wireless device of a user. Upon receiving a search request from the wireless device, the computing system utilizes the location data to determine one or more likely travel routes of the user of the wireless device
Prehofer (US 20110161855 A1) discloses provided for visually indicating location probability, particularly in a multi-level, three-dimensional environment. In general, example embodiments of the present invention provide an improvement by, among other things, providing a method of a graphical user interface that displays the uncertain location of a device within an environment in an easily discernable format such that a user may be able to determine their location more easily.
OH ( US 20140019552 A1) discloses process to a chat session or data feed may be provided to a user of a mobile device when the current location of the mobile device is determined to be within a predetermined geographic region.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Bahta whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-fee).
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights