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 .
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,093,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are substantially similar as shown in the table below.
Application 18/825,841
Patent 12,093,000
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
performing a plurality of assessments of different characteristics of data for a segment of the training period;
including the data for the segment in a set of training data or excluding the data from the set of training data based on results of the plurality of assessments for the segment;
repeating the plurality of assessments for additional data of a plurality of additional segments of the training period;
including the additional data in the set of training data or excluding the additional data from the set of training data based on results of the plurality of assessments for the plurality of additional segments;
training a system model for a system using the set of training data; and
controlling the system using the system model.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
operating equipment in accordance with a setpoint to affect a measurement for a space during a training period;
performing a plurality of assessments of different characteristics of data for a segment of the training period;
wherein the data for the segment is included in the set of training data in response to passing the plurality of assessments or excluded from the set of training data in response to failing one or more of the plurality of assessments,
repeating the plurality of assessments for a plurality of additional segments of the training period;
and wherein data corresponding to the plurality of additional segments is included in the set of training data or excluded from the set of training data based on results of the plurality of assessments for the plurality of additional segments;
training a system model using a set of training data,
and controlling the equipment using the system model.
Claim 2:
The method of Claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments for the segment comprises: performing a first assessment of a correlation between a setpoint and a measurement during the segment; performing a second assessment of a load on the system during the segment relative to a threshold load; and performing a third assessment of durations between setpoint changes during the segment.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments comprises: performing a first assessment of a correlation between the setpoint and the measurement during the segment; performing a second assessment of a load on the equipment during the segment relative to a threshold load; and performing a third assessment of durations between setpoint changes during the segment.
Claim 3:
The method of Claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments for the segment comprises: calculating a correlation coefficient based on values of a setpoint and measured values for the segment; and comparing the correlation coefficient to a threshold value.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments comprises performing a first assessment, the first assessment comprising calculating a correlation coefficient based on values of the setpoint and the measured value for the segment and comparing the correlation coefficient to a threshold value.
Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments for the segment comprises: determining a threshold load as a percentage of a maximum load during the segment; and comparing a load on the system during the segment to the threshold load.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments comprises performing a second assessment of a load on the equipment during the segment relative to a threshold load, the second assessment comprising determining the threshold load as a percentage of a maximum load during the segment.
Claim 5:
The method of Claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments for the segment comprises determining whether a load on the system exceeds a threshold load for at least a threshold duration of the segment.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments comprises performing a second assessment of a load on the equipment during the segment relative to a threshold load, the second assessment comprising determining whether the load on the equipment exceeds the threshold load for at least a threshold amount of the segment.
Claim 6:
The method of Claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments for the segment comprises determining durations between setpoint changes during the segment; labeling setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; calculating a sum of the durations for the valid setpoint changes; and comparing the sum to a threshold value.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the plurality of assessments comprises performing an assessment comprising determining the durations between setpoint changes to during the segment; labeling setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; calculating a sum of the durations for the valid setpoint changes; and comparing the sum to a threshold value.
Claim 7:
The method of Claim 1, comprising: determining whether a total duration of segments included in the set of training data exceeds a threshold duration; and training the system model using the set of training data in response to the total duration exceeding the threshold duration.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a total duration of the segment and the additional segments included in the set of training data exceeds a threshold duration.
Claim 8:
A controller configured to: perform, for a segment of a training period, a test comprising at least one of: a first assessment of a correlation between a setpoint and a measured value during the segment; a second assessment of a load on the system during the segment relative to a threshold load; a third assessment of durations between setpoint changes during the segment; or a fourth assessment of a count of the setpoint changes during the segment that satisfy a criterion; train a system model for a system using a set of training data, wherein data corresponding to the segment is included or excluded from the set of training data based on the test; and control the system using the system model.
Claim 8:
A system comprising: building equipment configured to operate in accordance with a setpoint for a variable state or condition of a space; a sensor configured to obtain a measured value for the variable state or condition of the space;
a controller configured to: perform, for a segment of a training period, a test comprising at least one of: a first assessment of a correlation between the setpoint and the measured value during the segment; a second assessment of a load on the building equipment during the segment relative to a threshold load; a third assessment of durations between setpoint changes during the segment; or a fourth assessment of a count of the setpoint changes during the segment that satisfy a criterion; train a system model using a set of training data, wherein data corresponding to the segment is included or excluded from the set of training data based on the test; and control the building equipment using the system model.
Claim 9:
The controller of Claim 8, wherein the test comprises the first assessment and the controller is configured to perform the first assessment by: calculating a correlation coefficient based on values of the setpoint and the measured value for the segment; and comparing the correlation coefficient to a threshold value.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 8, wherein the test comprises the first assessment and the controller is configured to perform the first assessment by calculating a correlation coefficient based on values of the setpoint and the measured value for the segment and comparing the correlation coefficient to a threshold value.
Claim 10:
The controller of Claim 8, wherein the test comprises the second assessment and the controller is configured to perform the second assessment by determining the threshold load as a percentage of a maximum load during the segment.
Claim 10:
The system of claim 8, wherein the test comprises the second assessment, wherein the controller is configured to perform the second assessment by determining the threshold load as a percentage of a maximum load during the segment.
Claim 11:
The controller of Claim 8, wherein the test comprises the second assessment and the controller is configured to perform the second assessment by determining whether the load on the system exceeds the threshold load for at least a threshold duration of the segment.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 8, wherein the test comprises the second assessment, wherein the controller is configured to perform the second assessment by determining whether the load on the equipment exceeds the threshold load for at least a threshold fraction of the segment.
Claim 12:
The controller of Claim 8, wherein the test comprises the third assessment and the controller is configured to perform the third assessment by: determining the durations between the setpoint changes during the segment; labeling the setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; calculating a sum of the durations for the valid setpoint changes; and comparing the sum to a threshold value.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 8, wherein the test comprises the third assessment, wherein the controller is configured to perform the third assessment by: determining the durations between the setpoint changes during the segment; labeling the setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; calculating a sum of the durations for the valid setpoint changes; and comparing the sum to a threshold value.
Claim 13:
The controller of Claim 8, wherein the test comprises the fourth assessment and the controller is configured to perform the fourth assessment by: determining the durations between the setpoint changes during the segment; labeling the setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; comparing a count the valid setpoint changes to a threshold value.
Claim 13:
The system of claim 8, wherein the test comprises the fourth assessment, wherein the controller is configured to perform the fourth assessment by: determining the durations between the setpoint changes during the segment; labeling the setpoint changes corresponding to durations within a predefined range as valid setpoint changes; comparing a count the valid setpoint changes to a threshold value.
Claim 14:
The controller of Claim 8, further configured to: repeat the test for a plurality of additional segments of the training period; and include data corresponding to the plurality of additional segments in the set of training data or exclude the data corresponding to the plurality of additional segments from the set of training data based on results of the test for the plurality of additional segments.
Claim 14:
The system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to repeat the test for a plurality of additional segments of the training period and include or exclude, from the set of training data, data corresponding to the plurality of additional segments based on results of the tests for the plurality of additional segments; wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether a total duration of the segment and additional segments included in the set of training data exceeds a threshold duration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights