DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on September 4th 2024, in which claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,745 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are clearly anticipated by the reference claims. Regarding pending claim 1, every limitation recited is also recited by claim 1 of reference patent ‘745. The only difference is that claim 1 from the reference patent contains the additional feature “determining from the tagged point database … the intelligence matrix analysis of the building. Claims 2-14 are identical to claims 2-14 of the reference patent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “650” (Fig. 6) has been used to designate both Data Source and BAS Controller. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamel et al. US 2012/0323382 A1 in view of Enck US 2016/0210569 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kamel discloses:
receiving, from a BAS or other data source over a network, static data for a plurality of electrical energy-consuming equipment (EECE) associated with the building, the static data including one or more performance attributes for each EECE (building management system receives static energy data for building – see abstract, paragraph 11, Fig. 1);
receiving, from the BAS or network edge device over the network, dynamic data for each EECE, the dynamic data including measured performance data for each EECE over a predetermined time period (building management system receives dynamic energy data for building, dynamic data is associated with time information and relates to energy usage – see abstract, paragraphs 11, 14, Fig. 1; the system also receives sensor data which measures actual energy usage – see paragraph 34 and Fig. 1);
determining a BAS point for each EECE based on the static data and the dynamic data, each BAS point having a plurality of attributes including … a semantic label, and one or more measured performance values (system provides managed energy service based on the static and dynamic data – paragraph 50, including measured performance – 51; information can be provided per individual equipment – see paragraph 79, equipment has label such as “HVAC” – paragraph 80, thus it determines a “BAS point for each EECE” as recited by the claim, and this information includes actual measured performance – see paragraph 94); and
generating one or more additional tags based on the measured performance value (generate alert with information based on the measured performance – Fig. 6, paragraphs 146-147; the alert of Kamel is equivalent to the claimed “tag” because it performs the same function and is generated based on measured performance values, furthermore, the BRI of “tag” includes a label and an alert is merely a type of label);
generating a tag list based on the … additional tags (user interface displays alerts/recommendations – paragraph 37, thus “a list” is generated);
generating a tagged point database based on the tag list for each BAS point (save logs – paragraph 45, also see paragraph 40 and Figs. 1-2 which show a database).
Kamel does not explicitly disclose a unique ID, generating one or more common tags based on the unique ID and semantic label, and generating a tag list based on the common tags. However, this is taught by Enck as a BAS point name data management system that includes identifier, tag, name and common tag (e.g. component type), each point belongs to a specific component (see paragraphs 127-128 and Table 2; unique ID for each point – paragraph 130). The system can convert and assign names/identifiers to the point table (paragraph 130, see also paragraph 135 which teaches generating an alias for each point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the table taught by Enck with the building management system of Kamel for the purpose of managing building energy systems. Enck suggests this provides semi-automatic classification and easily searching, editing, etc. of information (paragraphs 127 and 131).
Regarding claim 2, Kamel does not explicitly disclose the common tag as discussed above but Enck teaches the common tag is a descriptive text string (tag is word – see Table 2). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 3, Kamel does not explicitly disclose generating common tags includes tokenizing, analyzing Levenshtein distances, matching fuzzy sets, or clustering to identify similar BAS points. Enck teaches at least clustering similar BAS points (see Table 2 and paragraph 138 which discloses “component grouping”). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 4, Kamel does not explicitly disclose generating one or more common tags further includes identifying disparate string tokens within the unique ID and the semantic label to uniquely identifier point identifiers, floor numbers, zone labels, or other disparate metadata. But this is taught by Enck as extracting this information from string data / database to create the point table (paragraph 128, Table 2). Enck suggests that automatically discovering this information assists with classification (paragraph 128).
Regarding claim 5, Kamel discloses each additional tag is a descriptive text string (alert provides information – Fig. 6, paragraphs 146-147).
Regrading claim 6, Kamel discloses generating one or more additional tags includes recognizing a pattern within the measure performance values over time (alerts include malfunctioning equipment which is identified based on energy consumption and performance, or in other words, a pattern of performance over time – paragraph 147).
Regarding claim 7, Kamel does not explicitly disclose receiving, from a user, one or more tag list corrections, and updating the tagged point database based on the tag list corrections. But this is taught by Enck as providing a user interface for replacing, editing and deleting point table information (paragraphs 131-132). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 8, Kamel does not explicitly disclose generating one or more common tags is further based on the tag list corrections but this is taught by Enck as explained above (a user makes edits – paragraphs 131-132).
Regarding claim 9, Kamel does not explicitly disclose generating one or more additional tags is further based on the tag list corrections, but this would be the result of the combination of Kamel and Enck. Kamel discloses generating the additional tags as explained in the rejection of claim 1 and Enck teaches using tag list corrections to update tags (paragraphs 131-132). Thus the combination would result in generating the additional tags based on both performance values and tag list corrections as recited by the claim. The motivation to combine is the same as that given in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kamel discloses displaying via a GUI the tag list for one or more BAS points (user interface has GUI for displaying data – paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 11, Kamel discloses the EECE is an electrical device or electromechanical device (HVAC, light, pump, etc. – paragraph 62); the static data for each EECE include at least one of known condition energy consumption data, status data, frequency of use data, lockout data, environmental sensor data measured proximate to the EECE or control command data (static data includes fixed asset data, specification sheets, op manuals – see paragraph 47, this reads on at least known energy consumption data for each EECE); and
the measured performance data for each EECE include at least one of speed data, electrical current data, electrical voltage data, or electrical power data (measure energy use includes measuring current and voltage – paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 13, it is a system claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Kamel discloses a network interface, memory and processor (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 40-41). Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is a non-transitory medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamel and Enck in view of Hon et al. US 2014/0122729 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Kamel discloses dynamic data for the one or more EECEs … and the measured performance data transmitted from the EECE to the BAS or network edge device over a local network (Fig. 1).
The combination of Kamel and Enck does not explicitly disclose a filtered data rate that is less than a raw data rate of the measured performance data but it is well known in the art to process sensor data as such. Hon explicitly teaches that a raw data rate is high, so it must be pre-processed which reduces the data rate (paragraph 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamel and Enck with the data rate conversion taught by Hon. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result (e.g. transmitting data at a lower rate conserves network resources).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shkolnikov et al. US 2012/0096290 A1 discloses signal pre-processing that converts a high raw data rate stream into a low rate data stream (paragraph 6).
Narain et al. US 2017/0082993 A1 discloses a building control system using tags, sensors and measured performance data (abstract), tags are associated with electrical equipment and an identifier (paragraph 137).
Glaser et al. US 2018/0196402 A1 discloses a method for improving BAS performance (abstract, Fig. 1, 3, 5).
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/707276. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458