DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 7 May 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 7 May 2026 amended Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 18-20. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 10 that "The Advisory Action insists that 'filtered' and 'arranged' as previously recited in Claim 18 provided Claim 18 with the alleged mental processes of 'filtering' and 'arranging'" and that by removing those words, "nothing remains in Claim 18 which has been alleged to be an abstract idea" and that "the operations of Claim 18 cannot be performed in the human mind."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the removal of the specific words "filtered" and "arranged" from Claim 18 does not cure the 101 deficiencies because the abstract character of the claim is not dependent solely on the presence of those particular words. As amended, Claim 18 continues to recite the abstract steps of receiving data from a plurality of separate building applications and providing a timeline display of events and building health changes on a graphical user interface steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the mental processes of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information from multiple sources and presenting the results. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom. The relevant inquiry under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) is whether the specific limitations recited in the claim can practically be performed in the human mind, including by means of observation, evaluation, and judgment not whether the claim as a whole can be executed mentally in its entirety. The steps of receiving building site event data from multiple applications and determining which events to present on a timeline relative to building health trends are precisely the type of analytical judgments a human building manager could perform when reviewing data from multiple sources, and the recitation of a generic graphical user interface as the output medium does not remove the abstract character of the underlying operative steps. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 10 that "Claim 19 depends from Claim 18 and does not add an abstract idea" and that "Claim 19 is therefore also directed to patent-eligible subject matter."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A dependent claim that derives from an independent claim that is itself directed to a judicial exception does not become patent eligible merely by virtue of its dependence, unless the dependent claim adds additional elements or combinations of elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.07. Claim 19 adds only that the operations further comprise automatically causing, based on the data, an intervention at the building site to affect building health and adding the intervention to the timeline on the graphical user interface. This additional step is itself a further abstract step automatically determining and causing an intervention based on data analysis that does not add a specific technical implementation detail sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it recite additional elements beyond generic computer implementation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional step of causing an intervention and adding it to the timeline is either itself abstract or is no more than the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use, which is insufficient under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 10 that "Independent Claim 20 is patent-eligible for similar reasons as Claim 18" and that "Claim 20 is not believed to recite any features alleged to be a judicial exception to this point in prosecution."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that as set forth above with respect to Claim 18, the operative functional steps that the circuitry in Claim 20 is programmed to perform receiving data relating to a building site from a plurality of building applications representing a plurality of events over a lifecycle and providing a graphical user interface comprising a line representing time, event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of events, and a visualization of changes in building health shown relative to that subset continue to recite the abstract concept of collecting, organizing, and displaying information. The physical hardware recitations of building equipment, computing systems, and circuitry are generic computer components that do not add meaningfully to the eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (noting that "the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea"). That Claim 20 has not previously been specifically analyzed in terms of which limitations constitute the abstract idea does not mean the claim is patent-eligible; the Examiner finds upon analysis of the amended claim language that the programmed functions recited in Claim 20 continue to fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Claim 18. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 10–11 that the Advisory Action's comments imply that GUI structural language such as "event markers positioned along the line" and "the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of events" might erroneously be interpreted as mental processes, and that "such claim language is directed to the structure of what is displayed on the graphical user interface" and that "the human mind cannot provide a graphical user interface having the claimed structure."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that while the Examiner agrees that a graphical user interface is a physical construct that cannot itself be produced by the human mind, Applicant's argument conflates the Step 2A Prong One question of whether the claim recites an abstract idea with the Step 2A Prong Two question of whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The abstract idea identified by the Examiner is not that the GUI itself is a mental process, but rather that the functional operations programmed into the circuitry collecting data from multiple building applications, correlating events to building health trends, and determining which events and health changes to present relative to one another are mental process steps recited at a high level of generality. The description of the desired visual output structure on the GUI describes the result of those abstract steps, not a specific technical mechanism for achieving that result, and as such does not transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., (instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, held ineligible). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 11 that the Office Action on page 13 applied the rule that "a specification that describes advantages of an invention is not sufficient if the claims are drafted broadly enough to encompass embodiments that do not achieve those improvements, or if the claims do not recite the specific features that produce the improvement," but that this rule was misapplied because "the specification does not indicate that a specific technique, filtering algorithm, or data format or structure is required to unlock the advantages described in [0125]" and that "it is the combination of claimed features which provide the disclosed advantages, and those features are recited in the claim."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner acknowledges that a claim need not explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification, and that a claim may reflect an improvement without using the specific words of that improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a); Ex Parte Desjardins (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential). However, the corollary principle is equally applicable and controlling: the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that actually provide the improvement described in the specification, and as clarified by Deputy Commissioner Kim's memorandum of August 4, 2025, a key consideration is whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as opposed to a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. The specification at [0124]–[0125] describes specific technical advantages including reduced computational complexity, reduced network bandwidth, and reduced memory requirements achieved through efficient aggregation of data into a predetermined format from separate applications using different formats, and through the use of a table of site directory associations. Claim 1 as amended, however, recites these steps at a level of functional generality "aggregating the received data in accordance with a predetermined format" and "filtering the aggregated data to identify a plurality of isolated events" that covers any conceivable manner of performing those functions, including implementations that do not employ the specific conversion rules, unified data format, or table of site directory associations that the specification identifies as producing the described computational improvements. Because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses implementations that would not achieve the technical improvements described in the specification, it fails to reflect those improvements with sufficient specificity to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 11–12 that the Office Action's statement that "consolidating information from multiple sources into a single display is the automation of a task that could otherwise be performed by a human reviewing multiple applications" is incorrect because "while a human could separately read information from multiple applications and displays, a human cannot mentally cause that information to be consolidated into a single display, absent use of some practical, technical tool."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner has carefully considered this argument and finds it unpersuasive. The test for whether a claim limitation falls within the mental processes grouping is whether the steps recited in the claim can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without a physical aid such as pen and paper, not whether the human mind alone, unaided by any tool, can perform the entire claimed operation in its entirety. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. A building manager could, and routinely does, mentally receive information from multiple building applications, evaluate which events are relevant, assess building health trends relative to those events, and synthesize that information into a coherent understanding the very functions recited in the claims using pen and paper or other physical aids. The fact that a computer then automates this process and presents the result on a display does not render the underlying steps non-abstract; courts have consistently held that automating a task previously performed manually using a generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services; Electric Power Group. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 12–13 that the Advisory Action's statement that "the claims do not recite any specific technical implementation that would distinguish the claimed invention from the abstract concept of collecting, organizing, and displaying information" improperly "conflates the 101 analysis with the 102 or 103 analysis" and that "comparison to prior art under 102 or 103 is the proper place to analyze whether the claims recite details sufficient to distinguish from what the Examiner considers normal practice in the art" and further that "the 101 analysis ends once the claims are shown by the evidence of record to be directed to a technical improvement."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees
With respect to the argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the 101 analysis has been conflated with the prior art analysis. The requirement that a claim directed to an alleged technical improvement must recite the specific steps or components that reflect the improvement described in the specification is a 101 requirement that is analytically distinct from the novelty and obviousness analysis under 102 and 103. See MPEP 2106.05(a); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., (patent owner argued the claimed email filtering system improved technology, but the court held the claims ineligible because the claims themselves did not include limitations that addressed those asserted improvements). The Examiner is not finding that the claimed steps are anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art; the Examiner is finding that the claims, as drafted at a high level of functional generality, cover the abstract concept of collecting, organizing, and displaying building site information without reciting the particular technical solution described in the specification that would distinguish them from that abstract concept. Applicant's assertion that the 101 analysis ends once the specification shows a technical improvement is correct in principle but incomplete in application the improvement must also be reflected in the claims themselves, and it is not sufficient for the specification to describe an improvement that the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do not actually require a practitioner to implement. See Ex Parte Desjardins (precedential); Deputy Commissioner Kim memorandum of August 4, 2025. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, filtering, and displaying building site data a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed steps and amount to no more than generic computer implementation of the abstract concept. The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited components and steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities and generic computer components performing generic computer functions.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claims 1–17 are directed to a method (process), claims 18–19 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (manufacture), and claim 20 is directed to a building system (machine). Therefore, all claims fall within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The independent claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the following limitations that constitute the identified abstract idea:
Claim 1 – Identified Abstract Limitations
• "receiving data relating to a building site from a plurality of separate building applications"
• "aggregating the received data from the plurality of separate building applications in accordance with a predetermined format, wherein the aggregated data represents a plurality of events associated with the building site over a lifecycle of the building site"
• "filtering the aggregated data to identify a plurality of isolated events associated with the building site over the lifecycle of the building site, wherein each of the plurality of isolated events includes a time associated with the isolated event"
• "providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health, the timeline comprising markers representing the plurality of isolated events such that timing of the changes in the building health are visualized relative to the times associated with the isolated events"
Claim 18 – Identified Abstract Limitations
• "receiving from a plurality of separate building applications data representing a plurality of events associated with a building site over a lifecycle of the building site"
• "providing a timeline comprising event markers representing the plurality of events and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over a timeframe represented by the timeline"
Claim 20 – Identified Abstract Limitations
• "receive data relating to a building site from the plurality of building applications, wherein the data represents a plurality of events associated with the building site over a lifecycle of the building site"
• "provide a line representing time, event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of the events, and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over the time represented by the line such that the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of the events"
Abstract Idea Grouping – Mental Processes
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The identified limitations cover performance of the claimed steps in the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, with or without a physical aid such as pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.).
Specifically, the step of receiving data from a plurality of building applications encompasses the mental process of observing or consulting information from multiple sources. The step of aggregating the received data in accordance with a predetermined format encompasses the mental process of collecting and organizing information according to a set of rules a task a human building manager could perform by gathering records from multiple applications and organizing them by chronological order or category. The step of filtering the aggregated data to identify isolated events encompasses the mental evaluation and judgment involved in reviewing aggregated records and identifying which events are relevant or significant over a building lifecycle the type of analytical judgment a human routinely applies when assessing building maintenance or performance history. The step of providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health encompasses the mental process of synthesizing the identified events into a coherent chronological representation correlated with perceived building health trends. These are precisely the types of observations, evaluations, and judgments that human building managers have performed for decades when reviewing building maintenance records from multiple sources. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.) (holding that "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results" where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality constitutes a mental process).
The specification itself confirms this interpretation. Paragraphs [0004]–[0005] describe the problem to be solved as the difficulty of obtaining and synthesizing performance information across large building management systems, and paragraphs [0074], [0085]–[0092], and [0096]–[0102] describe the invention’s solution as aggregating, converting, compiling, filtering, and displaying data from multiple building applications tasks described at a functional level that a skilled person would recognize as automating a cognitive workflow previously performed by human building managers. Courts have consistently found that performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not remove the claim from the mental processes grouping. See Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc.; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components such as "a processor," "circuitry," or "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media" does not take the identified claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (noting that "[t]he recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea"). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Identification of Additional Elements
The independent claims recite the following additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea:
• One or more processors / circuitry (Claims 1, 18, 20).
• One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions (Claims 18–19).
• Building equipment operable to heat, cool, or ventilate a building (Claim 20).
• A plurality of computing systems providing a plurality of building applications (Claim 20).
• A graphical user interface (Claims 1, 18, 20).
Analysis of Additional Elements
Improvement to Technology or Technical Field (MPEP 2106.05(a)):
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the specification at paragraphs [0124]–[0125] describes advantages including reduced computational complexity, reduced network bandwidth, and reduced memory requirements, the claims themselves do not recite the specific technical components or steps that produce those asserted improvements. Specifically, Claim 1 recites "aggregating the received data from the plurality of separate building applications in accordance with a predetermined format" and "filtering the aggregated data to identify a plurality of isolated events" at a level of functional generality that covers any conceivable manner of performing those functions, including implementations that do not employ the specific conversion rules, unified data format, or table of site directory associations that the specification identifies as contributing to computational efficiency. A specification that describes advantages of an invention is not sufficient to establish a practical application if the claims are drafted broadly enough to encompass embodiments that do not achieve those improvements or if the claims do not recite the specific features that produce the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 covers any implementation of receiving, aggregating, filtering, and displaying building site data precisely the type of broad functional claim the Federal Circuit found ineligible in Electric Power Group, (collecting, analyzing, and displaying power grid information held ineligible as directed to a mental process without integration into a practical application).
Applicant may argue that the combination of receiving data from multiple building applications and displaying it in a unified timeline with overlaid building health changes constitutes an improvement in the user’s ability to understand building performance. However, as the Federal Circuit has held, providing more information to users to facilitate a business process even where the improvement has practical value improves the business process rather than computer technology, and is therefore insufficient to establish a practical application. See Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC) (arranging transactional information on a GUI to assist traders did not improve computer technology). Similarly, consolidating information from multiple building applications into a single display improves the building management workflow but does not improve the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field within the meaning of the eligibility analysis.
Furthermore, per the August 4, 2025 Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner Kim, a key distinction in the improvements analysis is between a claim that reflects an improvement to a computer or other technology described in the specification (which is eligible) and a claim in which the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" or are no more than general instructions to implement a judicial exception on a computer (which is ineligible). An important consideration is whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Here, the claims recite only the idea of the solution receive, aggregate, filter, and display building site data in a timeline with building health overlay without specifying the particular technical mechanism by which the aggregation, filtering, or health visualization is accomplished.
Particular Machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)):
The claims do not recite use of a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claim scope. The recited "processor," "circuitry," "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media," "computing systems," and "graphical user interface" are generic computing components that perform generic computing functions at a high level of generality. Claim 20 recites "building equipment operable to heat, cool, or ventilate a building" and "a plurality of computing systems providing a plurality of building applications" as physical hardware, but these components are described in the specification at paragraphs [0026]–[0030] and [0050]–[0059] as conventional building management and computer hardware performing their ordinary functions. The presence of conventional building equipment in Claim 20 does not meaningfully limit the abstract data-collection and display operations recited in the claim, as those operations are performed by the generic circuitry and are not tied to any particular physical arrangement or unconventional configuration of the building equipment.
Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)):
The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims recite generic computing components processors, circuitry, computer-readable media performing generic computing functions receiving data, aggregating data, filtering data, displaying results without specifying any particular technical implementation that goes beyond applying the abstract idea on a computer. This is tantamount to adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, ("simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer" is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept).
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
The additional element of receiving data from a plurality of building applications constitutes mere data gathering that is a necessary antecedent step incidental to performing the abstract idea of aggregating and filtering building site data. Such data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Similarly, providing the output timeline and building health visualization on a graphical user interface is mere display or outputting of the results of the abstract process, which the Federal Circuit has consistently found to constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power Group, ("Merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"). These elements remain insignificant extra-solution activity when considered individually, and the question of whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional is reserved for Step 2B.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, filtering, and displaying building site data. The recited generic computer components and data gathering and display steps do not improve computer technology or any other technology or technical field, do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine that meaningfully limits the claims, and do not reflect any particular technical solution beyond the abstract concept itself. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity Analysis
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network from multiple sources The courts have recognized receiving data from multiple sources over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Symantec Corp., (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (sending messages over a network). Furthermore, the specification itself at paragraphs [0072]–[0075] and [0084]–[0086] describes receiving data from multiple building applications (commissioning, service, salesforce, business solutions, performance verification) as a known function of the site directory tool using standard communication interfaces, confirming this is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the building management field.
• Storing and retrieving information in memory The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,; OIP Techs. The specification at paragraphs [0072]–[0073] describes the memory and storage components of the site directory tool as standard RAM, ROM, Flash memory, and hard disk storage, confirming these are conventional components.
• Aggregating and organizing data The courts have recognized that aggregating, compiling, and organizing data according to rules are well-understood, routine, conventional data processing activities. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the aggregation module 522 and conversion module 524 as performing well-known data aggregation and format conversion operations.
• Displaying results on a graphical user interface The courts have recognized that displaying results or data on a generic computer display or graphical user interface is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Electric Power Group, ("Merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Solutions, Inc., (generating and displaying menus on a GUI is conventional). The specification at paragraphs [0092] and [0105]–[0108] describes the interface generator module 532 as configured to generate interfaces illustrating timeline data using standard display components.
• Generic processor/circuitry/computer-readable media The use of a generic processor, circuitry, or non-transitory computer-readable media to implement software instructions is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Alice. The specification at paragraphs [0054]–[0056] and [0072]–[0073] describes the processor and memory as general purpose or application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) components that are considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited additional elements are all well-understood, routine, and conventional components and activities in the building management and computer technology fields, and do not reflect any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that would provide a technical improvement in the art. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, (distinguishing claims that reflect a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The dependent claims do not add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept:
• Claims 2–3: These claims further define the data receiving step by specifying the types of building applications from which data is received (e.g., commissioning application, service application, sales management application, business solutions application, and performance verification tool). These limitations merely specify the particular sources of data gathered, which constitutes additional insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering steps incidental to the abstract idea) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
• Claims 4–5: These claims further define the data receiving and aggregating steps by specifying that the received data is in one or more different data formats and that conversion via conversion rules into a unified data format is performed, and that aggregating includes generating a table including associations between building site identifiers and a unified building site identifier. While these limitations add specificity to the data conversion process, they recite the concept of converting data formats and generating a lookup table at a functional level without specifying any particular technical implementation of the conversion algorithm or table structure beyond what a person of ordinary skill would recognize as well-understood, routine, and conventional data normalization techniques. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
• Claims 6–8: These claims further define the filtering step by specifying that filtering includes obscuring additional events to provide an overall view of the lifecycle (Claim 6), using a machine learning model trained on historical data (Claim 7), or using a plurality of filtering rules each associated with a different building application (Claim 8). Claims 6 and 8 add additional specifications of the abstract filtering concept but remain at a functional level without specifying a particular technical implementation. Claim 7 recites the use of a machine learning model but does so at a high level of generality without specifying the architecture, training methodology, or particular technical mechanism of the machine learning model that covers any machine learning implementation and thus does not reflect a specific technical solution that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the July 2024 AI-SME Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137, July 17, 2024) (noting that recitation of AI at a high level of generality that merely performs the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
• Claims 9–11: These claims recite generating, via an AI model trained on historical data, an additional event and time to be included in the timeline (Claim 9), providing the additional event with a different event marker (Claim 10), and receiving user approval before updating the timeline (Claim 11). These limitations add the use of an AI model and a user approval step but, like Claim 7, recite the AI model at a high level of generality without specifying the particular technical architecture or training approach that would constitute a specific technical solution. Adding a user approval interaction is also well-understood and conventional. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
• Claims 12–16: These claims add various display features including a graph extending along the timeline visualizing numbers of service reports or service visits (Claim 12), data tables with change identifiers and element health indicators associated with timeline points (Claim 13), a topic selection bar with topic report displays (Claim 14), a project timeline with phase and status indicators (Claim 15), and a recommendation interface with issue identification and health potential indicators (Claim 16). These limitations are additional data display and user interface elements that merely specify particular visual arrangements and categories of information to be displayed they describe desired outcomes of the display without reciting the technical mechanism for achieving those outcomes, and as such constitute insignificant extra-solution activity (mere display of results) that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.; Trading Technologies.
• Claim 17: This claim further recites automatically causing, based on the data, an intervention at the building site to affect building health and adding the intervention to the timeline. This additional step is itself either abstract (automatically determining and causing an intervention based on data analysis) or is a further application of the abstract idea to the field of building management without a specific technical implementation detail. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
• Claim 19: This claim depends from Claim 18 and adds only the step of automatically causing an intervention at the building site to affect building health and adding it to the timeline. For the same reasons as Claim 17, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
• Claim 3 (as amended): This claim adds adjusting, on the graphical user interface, the timeline to zoom in on a portion of the timeline in response to a user request to adjust the timeframe visible on the graphical user interface. This limitation recites a well-understood, routine, and conventional user interface zoom/pan interaction that does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, filtering, and displaying building site data a mental process and the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to no more than generic computer implementation of the abstract concept using well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and operations. The claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Applicant is invited to amend the claims to recite specific technical features that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, such as by claiming a particular technical mechanism for achieving the described computational improvements (e.g., the specific conversion rules, unified data format structure, or table of site directory associations described in the specification as contributing to reduced computational complexity and network bandwidth), or to traverse the rejection with arguments supported by the specification and applicable authority.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0297054 A1) in view of Nayak et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0034309 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for generating a rating scale to be used in an evaluation form, said method comprising:
receiving data relating to a building site from a plurality of separate building applications (see; Abstract of Zhang teaches receiving data from a building site from one of multiple buildings).
aggregating the received data from the plurality of separate building applications in accordance with a predetermined format, wherein the aggregated data represents a plurality of events associated with the building site over a lifecycle of the building site (see; par. [0141]-[0144] of Zhang teaches aggregating data that representing events of a building resources, par. [0147] from multiple buildings).
filtering the aggregated data to identify a plurality of isolated events associated with the building site over the lifecycle of the building site, wherein each of the plurality of isolated events includes a time associated with the isolated event (see; par. [0086] of Zhang teaches filtering various attributes of events from multiple buildings, par. [0141]-[0142] gathered from aggregated data, par. [0145] including time series data associated with the events).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Nayak teaches providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health on a graphical user interface, the timeline comprising markers representing the plurality of isolated events such that timing of the changes in the building health are visualized relative to the times associated with the isolated events (see; Abstract of Nayak teaches providing status data indicating fault (i.e. health), par. [0092] using a GUI to optimize building performance, par. [0004] including a timeline of faults, par. [0008] and a visualization of fault events).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health on a graphical user interface, the timeline comprising markers representing the plurality of isolated events such that timing of the changes in the building health are visualized relative to the times associated with the isolated events.
Nayak discloses providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health on a graphical user interface, the timeline comprising markers representing the plurality of isolated events such that timing of the changes in the building health are visualized relative to the times associated with the isolated events.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang providing a timeline and a visualization of changes in building health on a graphical user interface, the timeline comprising markers representing the plurality of isolated events such that timing of the changes in the building health are visualized relative to the times associated with the isolated events as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
receiving the data relating to the building site from the plurality of separate building applications includes receiving data from two or more of a commissioning application, a service application, a sales management application, a business solutions application, and a performance verification tool (see; par. [0135] of Zhang teaches receiving inputs, par. [0127] which includes external applications that monitor events (i.e. monitor performance), and par. [0092] application services (i.e. service applications)).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Nayak teaches comprising adjusting, on the graphical user interface, the timeline to zoon in on a portion of the timeline in response to a user request to adjust the timeframe visible on the graphical user interface (see; par. [0131] of Nayak teaches the ability to focus in and then resolve the fault (i.e. zoom in to adjust), par. [0138] an example of viewing a custom timeline).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose comprising adjusting, on the graphical user interface, the timeline to zoon in on a portion of the timeline in response to a user request to adjust the timeframe visible on the graphical user interface.
Nayak discloses comprising adjusting, on the graphical user interface, the timeline to zoon in on a portion of the timeline in response to a user request to adjust the timeframe visible on the graphical user interface.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang comprising adjusting, on the graphical user interface, the timeline to zoon in on a portion of the timeline in response to a user request to adjust the timeframe visible on the graphical user interface as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 4 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
aggregating the received data from the plurality of separate building applications in accordance with the predetermined format includes generating a table, the table including associations between building site identifiers of the one or more different data formats and a unified building site identifier (see; par. [0141]-[0144] of Zhang teaches aggregating data that representing events of a building resources, par. [0086] then taking the data and filtering the information, par. [0165]-[0167] taking all data, par. [0111] utilizing discovery tables to store data variables related to the equipment, par. [0144] where specific identifier for equipment for equipment in specific building).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
filtering the aggregated data to identify the plurality of isolated events includes obscuring additional events associated with the building site over the lifecycle of the building site such that the plurality of isolated events provide an overall view of the lifecycle of the building site (see; par. [0086] of Zhang teaches filtering by various attributes of multiple systems, par. [0143] providing an alert related to the events, par. [0145] along with the associated time series data).
wherein the isolated events represented by event markers comprise a first event determined from first data from a first building application of the plurality of separate building applications and a second event corresponding to a second building application determined from second data from a second building application of the plurality of separate building applications (see; par. [0143]-[0144] of Zhang teaches events from HVAC subsystems, par. [0145] faults alerts from building systems, Figure 7 installation services (teaches first event determined from first data from first building application), par. [0143]-[0144] events from lighting subsystem, security, fire safety, fig. 7 service activities (teaches second event determined from second data from second building application), par. [0141] multiple building subsystems, par. [0086] multiple systems, Figs 1A-4 HVAC, lighting security, fire safety, building electrical, ICT, Lift/escalators (teaches plurality of separate building applications, par. [0145] faults and alerts displayed, fig. 7 workflow activities, par. [0106] icons representing events (teaches isolated events represented by event markers).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
filtering the aggregated data to identify the plurality of isolated events includes filtering the aggregated data using a machine learning model trained using historical data associated with a plurality of building sites (see; par. [0137] of Zhang teaches a control module to initiate control actions to identify and manage events associated with machining in the buildings, par. [0137] analyzed by models).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
filtering the aggregated data to identify the plurality of isolated events includes filtering the aggregated data using a plurality of filtering rules, wherein each of the plurality of filtering rules is associated with a different building application of the plurality of separate building applications (see; par. [0141] of Zhang teaches integrated control layer that allows for constraints and control to detect and diagnose specific machines in specific buildings (i.e. filtering)).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 9 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
providing the timeline on the graphical user interface includes providing the additional event with an event marker that is different than the event markers of the plurality of isolated events (see; par. [0145] of Zhang teaches a data generated by a building system that provides information about a system and specific processes as well as operations (i.e. isolated event) that can be viewed on a, par. [0148] display of a graphical user interface including, par. [0145] including time series data).
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 9 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
receiving an approval of the additional event from a user, and updating the timeline on the graphical user interface to include the additional event on the timeline (see; par. [0106] of Zhang teaches adding, removing, and change points for machines to modify events, par. [0145] to define data generated building systems about a system and process that can be viewed, par. [0148] on a graphical user interface).
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
Nayak teaches providing the timeline and the visualization of the changes in the building health on the graphical user interface further comprises further providing a graph that extends along the timeline and varies in height to visualizing numbers of service reports or service visits over a timeframe represented by the timeline (see; Fig. 17 and Fig. 21 of Nayak teaches a depiction of a graph that shows load and efficiency, Abstract as well as fault data (i.e. an indication of health) along a timeline and visualizing service reports over a timeframe).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose providing the timeline and the visualization of the changes in the building health on the graphical user interface further comprises further providing a graph that extends along the timeline and varies in height to visualizing numbers of service reports or service visits over a timeframe represented by the timeline.
Nayak discloses providing the timeline and the visualization of the changes in the building health on the graphical user interface further comprises further providing a graph that extends along the timeline and varies in height to visualizing numbers of service reports or service visits over a timeframe represented by the timeline.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang providing the timeline and the visualization of the changes in the building health on the graphical user interface further comprises further providing a graph that extends along the timeline and varies in height to visualizing numbers of service reports or service visits over a timeframe represented by the timeline as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
providing the timeline on the graphical user interface comprises providing a table associated with one or more points in time along the timeline (see; par. [0145] of Zhang teaches providing a time series for events, par. [0064] on a graphical user interface, par. [0097] in the form of a table).
wherein the table includes characteristics relating to a component of the building site at a first point in time along the timeline and a second point in time along the timeline (see; par. [0097] of Zhang teaches the use of a table to provide, par. [0111] equipment data in a table, par. [0145] along with time series data).
providing the table associated with the one or more points in time along the timeline comprises (see; par. [0097] of Zhang teaches the use of a table to provide, par. [0111] equipment data in a table, par. [0145] along with time series data).
providing a change identifier, the change identifier indicating a change in the characteristic of the component of the building site between the first point in time and the second point in time (see; par. [0143]-[0145] of Zhang teaches a fault detector and diagnostic identification that can send an alert message as well as a schedule (i.e. time series data)).
providing an element health indicator, the element health indicator providing an indication of an overall health of the component of the building site between the first point in time and the second point in time (see; par. [0063] of Zhang teaches providing information measurements, positions, operating statuses, and diagnostics (i.e. health), par. [0145] including faults a and communication with time series data).
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
providing the timeline on the graphical user interface includes providing a topic selection bar including a plurality of topic selection icons, and wherein in response to a selection of one or more of the plurality of topic selection icons the method further comprises providing one or more topic report displays, wherein providing the one or more topic report displays includes providing one of a service report graph indicating a number of service visits performed at the building site over the timeline, a ticket report graph indicating a number of tickets close over the timeline, a work order graph indicating a number of open work orders over the timeline, and a system change graph indicating a number of system changes associated with the building site over the timeline (see; par. [0106] of Zhang teaches the visualization of equipment (i.e. icon) par. [0098] where the equipment is selected, par. [0127] an a report interface shows data regarding each building subsystems, par. [0145] which also provides time series data).
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
providing the timeline on the graphical user interface includes providing a project timeline associated with a project at the building site, the project timeline including a phase indicator indicating a phase of the project at a point in time along the project timeline, wherein providing the project timeline includes providing a status indicator, the status indicator indicating a status of the project compared to a projected timeline associated with the project (see; par. [0148] of Zhang teaches project workflows that indicates services to track project statuses (i.e. timeline), par. [0145] which also provides time series data, par. [0064] on a graphical user interface, par. [0148] which also provides the tracking of project statuses and updating schedules that include financial forecasting that further provides ongoing status of the equipment).).
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
providing a recommendation interface on the graphical user interface, wherein the recommendation interface includes an issue identification icon designating an identified issue, a recommendation display including a recommendation for addressing the identified issue, and a health potential indicator providing an indication of a projected overall health of the building site based on the recommendation (see; par. [0145] of Zhang teaches providing an alert for repair and faults, par. [0120] and then providing a recommendation for control parameter to address issues).
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang further discloses a method having the limitations of:
automatically causing, based on the data relating to the building site, an intervention at the building site to affect building health and adding the intervention to the timeline on the graphical user interface (see; par. [0145] of Zhang teaches automatically control parameters to address issues is using the business management system).
Referring to Claim 18, Zhang in view of Nayak teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media. Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
Nayak teaches providing, on a graphical user interface, a timeline comprising event markers representing the plurality of events and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over a timeframe represented by the timeline (see; Fig. 17 and Fig. 21 of Nayak teaches a depiction of a graph that shows load and efficiency (i.e. service reporting), Abstract as well as fault data (i.e. an indication of health) along a timeline and visualizing service reports over a timeframe).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose providing, on a graphical user interface, a timeline comprising event markers representing the plurality of events and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over a timeframe represented by the timeline.
Nayak discloses providing, on a graphical user interface, a timeline comprising event markers representing the plurality of events and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over a timeframe represented by the timeline.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang providing, on a graphical user interface, a timeline comprising event markers representing the plurality of events and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over a timeframe represented by the timeline as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 18 above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the non-transitory computer readable media above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 17, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 17.
Referring to Claim 20, Zhang in view of Nayak teaches a building system. Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claims 1 and 2, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1 and 2, except for the following noted exceptions.
building equipment operable to heat, cool, or ventilate a building (see; par. [0038] of Zhang teaches the equipment that is operated includes heating, cooling and ventilation).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Nayak teaches providing a graphical user interface comprising a line representing time and event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of the events, and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over the time represented by the line such that the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of the events (see; Fig. 17 and Fig. 21 of Nayak teaches a depiction of a graph that shows load and efficiency (i.e. service reporting), Abstract as well as fault data (i.e. an indication of health) along a timeline and visualizing service reports over a timeframe).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose providing a graphical user interface comprising a line representing time and event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of the events, and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over the time represented by the line such that the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of the events.
Nayak discloses providing a graphical user interface comprising a line representing time and event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of the events, and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over the time represented by the line such that the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of the events.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang providing a graphical user interface comprising a line representing time and event markers positioned along the line representing a subset of the plurality of the events, and a visualization of changes in building health of the building site over the time represented by the line such that the changes in building health are shown relative to the subset of the plurality of the events as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0297054 A1) in view of Nayak et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0034309 A1) in further view of Knox (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0364588 A1).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 3, above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang in view of Nayak does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Nayak teaches wherein receiving the data relating to the building site from the plurality of separate building applications includes receiving data arranged in one or more different data formats, further comprising converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format (see; par. [0117] and par. [0158] of Nayak teaches multiple facilities or buildings within a portfolio, par. [0106] utilizing multiple communication protocols (i.e. data formats))).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose receiving the data relating to the building site from the plurality of separate building applications includes receiving data arranged in one or more different data formats, further comprising converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format.
Nayak discloses receiving the data relating to the building site from the plurality of separate building applications includes receiving data arranged in one or more different data formats, further comprising converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang receiving the data relating to the building site from the plurality of separate building applications includes receiving data arranged in one or more different data formats, further comprising converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format as taught by Nayak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang and Nayak teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Zhang in view of Nayak does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Knox teaches via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format (see; par. [0008] of Knox teaches converting to standardized data format).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Knox teaches recommendations in ubiquitous computing environments using machine learning models in living spaces and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang and Nayak which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang and Nayak discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format.
Zhang and Nayak discloses converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang and Nayak the converting, via one or more conversion rules, the received data from the plurality of separate building applications into a unified data format as taught by Knox since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang, Nayak and Knox teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 1, above, while Zhang in view of Nayak teaches the method above, Zhang in view of Nayak does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Knox teaches generating, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using historical data associated with a plurality of building sites, an additional event and a time associated with the additional event to be included in the timeline (see; par. [0050] of Knox teaches the utilization of an artificial intelligence to provide solutions for environments, par. [0077] that is trained in order to analyze and utilize large data sets, par. [0091] including historical data sets to determine opportunities and provide, par. [0013] time, location and frequency data, par. [0077] and par. [0082] that then generates a recommendation that uses the historical data that models possible interactions to anticipate future outcomes and schedules activities (i.e. additional events and timing)).
The Examiner notes that Zhang teaches similar to the instant application teaches virtual commissioning of building management systems. Specifically, Zhang discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nayak teaches building management system with fault detection and diagnostics visualization and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Knox teaches recommendations in ubiquitous computing environments using machine learning models in living spaces and as it is comparable in certain respects to Zhang and Nayak which virtual commissioning of building management systems as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Zhang and Nayak discloses a building management system that receives building data that can be sued to remotely control the building. However, Zhang fails to disclose generating, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using historical data associated with a plurality of building sites, an additional event and a time associated with the additional event to be included in the timeline.
Zhang and Nayak discloses generating, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using historical data associated with a plurality of building sites, an additional event and a time associated with the additional event to be included in the timeline.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Zhang and Nayak generating, via an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using historical data associated with a plurality of building sites, an additional event and a time associated with the additional event to be included in the timeline as taught by Knox since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Zhang, Nayak and Knox teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to manage building resources and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alaghehband et al. (CA 3108929 A1) discloses a cloud based automation system and methods thereof for increasing energy efficiency of buildings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights