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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 8/16/2024. A filing date 8/16/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of provisional application 63533204 (which was filed on 8/17/2023) is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1,11, 18 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donal Ofarrell et al (US Publication 20220058173 A1, hereinafter Ofarrell), and in view of Benjamin Neilson et al (US Publication 20250306546 A1, hereinafter Neilson).
As for independent claim 1, Ofarrell discloses: A method, comprising: extracting ([0061], process and extract data from a single signal/sensor at one time or can process and extract data from multiple signals/sensors concurrently), by one or more processors, tags ([0061], add features as tags on top of sensor data) from free-text sequence of operations information for a building controller ([0007], receiving input data representing the operation of a physical device of a building automation system);
generating or selecting, based on the tags, a plurality of controller code modules for the building controller ([0069], The systems of analysis apps can comprise the configurable pipeline sequence 422 and be selected for inclusion in the pipeline based on the configuration file 408); …and controlling, by the building controller, building equipment using the control application ([0039], the building automation system 100 is able to control various aspects of building operation by controlling and monitoring the field devices 112. In particular, each or any of the field devices 112 can generate the data that is processed).
Ofarrell does not clearly disclose installing a control application, in an analogous art of automation building management system, Neilson discloses: installing, on the building controller, a control application comprising the plurality of controller code modules (Neilson: [0175], the installation involves installing the onsite controller 110 at or in the building 114 and operatively connecting the onsite controller for data communication with the BMS 112 and the cloud platform 108. In another configuration, the optimizer engine 110a may be installed to execute on any suitable computing system that is in data communication with the BMS software 112a, or the optimizer engine 110a may be installed to operate in the same computing system as the BMS software 112a);
Ofarrell and Neilson are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automation building management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ofarrell using the teachings of Neilson to include installing a control application. It would provide Ofarrell’s method with enhanced capabilities of connecting the onsite controller for data communication with the building management system and the cloud platform.
As for claim 2, Ofarrell-Neilson discloses: generating at least one of graphics, trends, point mappings, alarms, or schedules for the building equipment based on the plurality of controller code modules and the tags (Ofarrell: [0042], graphical views; [0176], the graphical user interface 1430 provides an interface for a user to view information about and control one or more devices, objects, and/or points associated with the management system 100. The graphical user interface 1430 also provides an interface that is customizable to present the information and the controls in an intuitive and user-modifiable manner).
As for claim 3, Ofarrell-Neilson discloses: automatically generating a project estimate using the tags and the plurality of controller code modules (Neilson: [0235], the FDD recommender process may be configured to convert the controlled output (e.g. fan speed) to an energy consumption value representing the energy forecasted to be consumed at the fan speed).
As per claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 12, Ofarrell-Neilson discloses: comprising building equipment configured to be controlled by the building controller, wherein, following installation of the control application on the building controller by the computer system, the building controller is configured to control the building equipment using the control application (Ofarrell: [0039], the building automation system 100 is able to control various aspects of building operation by controlling and monitoring the field devices 112. In particular, each or any of the field devices 112 can generate the data that is processed).
As per claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-2, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-2 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 20, Ofarrell-Neilson discloses: comprising installing on a building controller, the controller code modules and wherein deploying the building management system and the building equipment at the building comprises connect the building controller to the building equipment and controlling, by the building controller, the building equipment using the controller code modules (Neilson: [0175], the installation involves installing the onsite controller 110 at or in the building 114 and operatively connecting the onsite controller for data communication with the BMS 112 and the cloud platform 108. In another configuration, the optimizer engine 110a may be installed to execute on any suitable computing system that is in data communication with the BMS software 112a, or the optimizer engine 110a may be installed to operate in the same computing system as the BMS software 112a).
4. Claims 4-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofarrell and Neilson as applied on claim 1, and further in view of Bjorn Markus Jakobsson et al (US Publication 20210182111 A1, hereinafter Jakobsson).
As for claim 4, Ofarrell-Neilson does not disclose identifying node based on the calculated probability, in another analogous art of building automation system, Jakobsson discloses: wherein generating or selecting, based on the tags, a plurality of controller code modules for the building controller comprises identifying nodes of a selection tree by: calculating a probability that a first node should be selected as a function of the tags; and identifying the nodes comprises identifying the first node responsive to the probability exceeding a threshold (Jakobsson: [0176], Room 305 comprising Node 5 is determined to be a bedroom with a likelihood exceeding a threshold that may be set to a particular value, such as 0.8).
Ofarrell and Neilson and Jakobsson are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automation building management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ofarrell using the teachings of Jakobsson to include identifying the node with a likelihood exceeding a threshold value. It would provide Ofarrell’s method with enhanced capabilities of efficiently identifying the node in a automation building system.
As for claim 5, Ofarrell-Neilson-Jakobsson discloses: wherein calculating the probability is further based on an indication that a first tag is not included in the tags extracted from the free-text sequence of operations information (Jakobsson: [0069], a user indicates in a portal associated with the service provision that a new piece of equipment has been plugged in; please note a new piece equipment means it is not from previous operations information).
As for claim 6, Ofarrell-Neilson-Jakobsson discloses: training the function using a training dataset comprising associations between the tags and the nodes (Jakobsson: [0050], This tagged data can be used to train machine learning (ML) components that take other sensor data such as sound and motion data, and correlates the user pseudonyms with such data in order to generate a classifier).
As per claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 are incorporated herein.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofarrell and Neilson as applied on claim 1, and further in view of Ryssa Lolita Marquez et al (US Publication 20230393443 A1, hereinafter Marquez).
As for claim 7, Ofarrell-Neilson does not disclose generating additional control code if the feature is not available, Marquez discloses: wherein generating or selecting, based on the tags, a plurality of controller code modules for the building controller comprises: selecting a first controller code module from a code library based on the tags, the first control code module corresponding to a first control feature; determining, based on the tags, a second control feature, unavailable for selection via the code library; and generating, by a least one generative artificial intelligence model, additional control code configured to provide the second control feature when executed by one or more processors (Marquez: [0225], When a building is changed by addition, replacement, etc., the building model may be updated to reflect the changes. For example, if a building is retrofitted, features may be added or removed from the building model; please note changed features are not available in the code library and will be added).
Ofarrell and Neilson and Marquez are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automation building management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ofarrell using the teachings of Marquez to include adding the new or changed features. It would provide Ofarrell’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimizing the building management system with updated features.
6. Claims 8-9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofarrell and Neilson as applied on claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Rita Wouhaybi et al (US Publication 20200310394 A1, hereinafter Wouhaybi).
As for claim 8, Ofarrell-Neilson does not disclose applying a natural language processing model, Wouhaybi discloses: wherein extracting the tags from the free-text sequence of operations information comprises applying a natural language processing model to the free-text sequence of operations information (Wouhaybi: [0354], This clustering may use techniques from Natural Language Processing (NLP) for the creation of these meaningful descriptions).
Ofarrell and Neilson and Wouhaybi are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automation building management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ofarrell using the teachings of Wouhaybi to include using natural language processing. It would provide Ofarrell’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimizing the building management system with capability of understating human generated content.
As for claim 9, Ofarrell-Neilson-Wouhaybi comprising fine-tuning the natural language processing model using a training dataset comprising historical tags and historical sequence of operations information (Wouhaybi: [0184], These techniques also leverage current, historical and simulation results to optimize workload placement for operational technology environments for real-time operations).
As per claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 8, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 8 are incorporated herein.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofarrell and Neilson as applied on claim 1, and further in view of Dinesh Gondhi et al (US Publication 20230214671 A1, hereinafter Gondhi).
As for claim 10, Ofarrell-Neilson does not disclose a design diagram, Gondhi discloses: extracting the tags further based on a design diagram associated with the building equipment (Abstract, receiving a training set including pairings of control loop data for respective control loops identified in digitized design data and templates that were instantiated using the control loop data of the respective control loops and training, using machine learning, a knowledge base, based on the training set).
Ofarrell and Neilson and Wouhaybi are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, automation building management system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ofarrell using the teachings of Gondhi to include using digitized design data and template. It would provide Ofarrell’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimizing the building management system.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Gharakheili (US Publication 20240380768) COMBINING DEVICE BEHAVIORAL MODELS AND BUILDING SCHEMA FOR CYBER-SECURITY OF LARGE-SCALE IOT INFRASTRUCTURE
Mermoud (US Publication 20210303598) UNSUPERVISED LEARNING OF LOCAL-AWARE ATTRIBUTE RELEVANCE FOR DEVICE CLASSIFICATION AND CLUSTERING
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights