DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 (filed 09/27/2024) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-20 are newly filed.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are directed towards a signal per se.
Claim 1 recites in its preamble “A Building Management System (BMS) comprising one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” which directs the invention towards a system comprising one or more memory devices. Based upon the BRI of “one or more memory devices” this includes the instructions being encoded or stored in propagating electromagnetic signals, such as when instructions are sent wirelessly to perform the stored instructions. In this sense, the memory is the signals themselves, and thus under the BRI, claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter in the form of a signal per se.
Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising memory, while claim 17 is directed towards non-transitory storage media (i.e. memory). The scope of these claims are so close that they are considered substantial duplicates, as claim 1 does not incorporate the processor into the system of claim 1.
The examiner finds that should the processor of claim 1 be positively incorporated into the building management system of claim 1, this objection and the rejection of claim 1 as being directed towards a signal under 35 U.S.C. 101 would be overcome.
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 1-2, 5-8, 9-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to the statutory category of invention of a device or a product in the form of a system.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 are apparatus claims directed to abstract ideas in the form of (A) processes that are capable of being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. The acts of receiving a selection of parameters associated with building equipment corresponding to one or more features, identifying an evaluation to test a performance of the one or more features, determining a routine to perform the evaluation that includes a plurality of actions from claim 1 are directed to abstract ideas. For example, a person in their mind could determine which parameters are associated with building equipment (i.e. HVAC equipment relates to temperature and humidity, heaters relate to heating features, chilllers to chilling features, etc.) identify a set of tests that tests the performance of said features (i.e. turn on heater to test heating, turn off heater then turn on chiller to test chilling) and then determine a routine to perform the evaluation (i.e perform series of steps, first turn on heater, next turn off heater, next turn on chiller, during all steps determine if temperature is rising or falling on the basis of observation).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites that “and transmit, to the building equipment, control signals to cause the building equipment to execute the routine by adjusting values for the plurality of control parameters” however limitation under the BRI covers only the transmission of signals for an intended use; the controlling of equipment is not positively recited as an executed step by the system, because the mere transmission of signals does not cover the execution of commands in response to the signals.
Claim 1 recites, in part, A Building Management System (BMS) comprising one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, a user interface, a database. These limitations describe the concept of extra solution activity and amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”, (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “..vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group”). The use of computer related hardware is mere extra-solution activity in the form of computer equipment for executing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recites, in part, retrieve a plurality of control parameters to cause the building equipment to perform a plurality of actions, and transmit the control parameters to building equipment which are elements that amount to little more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that fail to place meaningful limits on the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “…The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)).”). For example, the retrieval and transmission of control signals from parameters is postsolution activity in the form of data retrieval and transmission that, while linking the judicial exception to the use of common computer-related functionality (data retrieval and transmission).
The abstract idea described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefor the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of computer components in the form of memory, processor and databases, and the use of those computer components for the retrieval and transmission of data. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations and functions.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-8 are drawn to aspects that under the BRI, are directed towards processes capable of being performed in the human mind with pen and paper. These limitations are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 9-10 and 13-18 contain subject matter substantially similar to that of claims 1-2 and 5-8, albeit in a different statutory category of invention. Accordingly, claims 9-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berinato et al. (US 10120373, hereinafter Berinato).
In regards to Claim 1, Berinato teaches “A Building Management System (BMS) comprising one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” ([col 2 line 56] According to various embodiments, an automated testing system for diagnosing an operational functionality and/or performance of one or more building controlled systems is provided. The system comprises: one or more memory storage areas containing one or more user-defined parameters, one or more analysis parameters, and one or more control system point properties, the one or more control system point properties being associated with one or more properties or characteristics of one or more devices connected to the control system for purposes of monitoring thereof; and one or more computer processors) “receive, via a user interface, a selection of a plurality of parameters associated with building equipment of a building, the plurality of parameters corresponding to one or more features of the building equipment” ([col 19 line 17] In certain embodiments, the test parameters 403 may be pre-established and/or pre-determined, whether by an individual user of the system or otherwise (as pre-set by a provider of the system 200); in other embodiments, the test parameters may be adjusted and/or updated, as desirable, whether by a user of the system or otherwise, for example, to comply with changing regulatory requirements for building efficiency standards or the like. In certain embodiments, the test parameters 403 may comprise simple testing procedure configuration data without further analysis of the data obtained via the testing itself; in other embodiments, the test parameters 403 may also include some degree of post-test analysis...The user parameters 405 comprise according to various embodiments any of a variety of user preferences that may be pre-established, as desirable. [col 21 line 33] Execution of the testing tool 610 according to various embodiments comprises at least some implementation of a testing procedure, as has been configured via the configuration module 500 and/or at least selected or otherwise authorized by one or more users of the system, whether at a prior point in time such that the testing occurs in an automated fashion from a real-time perspective or otherwise. In this regard, it should be understood that execution of the testing tool 610 is based at least in part upon receipt or (or retrieval of) at least a portion of test parameters 403 and user parameters 405 as have been previously described herein [col 22 line 40] it should be understood that execution of the testing tool 610 is based at least in part upon receipt or (or retrieval of) at least a portion of test parameters 403 and user parameters 405 as have been previously described herein. Execution of the testing tool 610 according to various embodiments typically generates testing data 612, which is based upon execution of the testing procedures, as based at least in part upon the parameters 403, 405 and/or additionally retrieved algorithms and/or software applications. [col 26 line 4] the system 200 is configured according to various embodiments (e.g., via the configuration module 500) to proceed to step 1102. During step 1102 an application or tool (e.g., the correlation tool 520 of FIG. 3) is configured according to various embodiments to organize and categorize control system or BAS points by controller network path and/or equipment type. In this manner, it should be understood that the BAS points are correlated, as least in part, for purposes of the subsequent test configuration and execution, [col 27 line 5] execution of step 1106 according to various embodiments comprises selection of one or more test(s) for execution. In certain embodiments, one or more test configurations, as may be pre-determined or pre-established, may be selected automatically via the system 200. In other embodiments, at least some portion of the tests and/or test configurations may be user selectable. In at least one of these embodiments, the user selection(s) may be made manually, as prompted and/or facilitated via the system 200. In other embodiments, so as to preserve the automated nature of the system 200 described herein, the user selection may be performed via cross-reference of the test(s) and/or test configurations (see also test parameters 403 of FIG. 3) against user parameters 405 as may have been pre-established and/or otherwise pre-determined by one or more users of the system and stored within one or more databases associated with the data module 400 or otherwise (e.g., in database 1110); wherein the selection of tests for a building relate to the features of the building equipment being tested) “identify, based on the plurality of parameters, an evaluation to test a performance of the building equipment with respect to the one or more features;” ([col 26 line 15] One non-limiting example of such correlation is that of the Pressure Independent VAV Test where the airflow set point, or CFM setpoint, of the testing program needs to be correlated to a corresponding point within the BAS. In order for the test to function properly, the test variable of the airflow set point must be linked to the correct value within the BAS to ensure the commands are being sent to the proper location. Based on nomenclature, point object properties and the like, the correlation software will determine according to various embodiments the point that best correlates to airflow set point and link that point to the correct variable within the testing program. [col 28 line 37] Returning to FIG. 6A, it may thus be understood that upon execution of step 1202, in which all of the devices (e.g., VAV controllers) to be tests are read/retrieved from the database 1214 (which should be understood as analogous to database 1110 and to be accessible or otherwise maintained via the data module 400 described elsewhere herein), the system 200 may be configured to proceed into the sub-loop process governed by steps 1203-1211...Beginning with step 1203, the system 200 according to various embodiments is configured to read in all device parameters (e.g., points, such as control system points or BAS points). During step 1204, pre-test calculations are performed to determine a number of airflow increments for, as a non-limiting example, a VAV terminal device. Where alternative devices are tested, it should be understood that alternative pre-test calculations may be performed so as to capture one or more pertinent parameters and/or characteristics of the tested device. As illustrated in FIG. 6A, in certain embodiments during step 1204 a maximum value may be also calculated or otherwise determined, which in at least the context of the VAV terminal device may correspond to a maximum airflow test value. Additional and/or alternative maximum values and/or incremental values may be also determined, as may be understood further with reference to iterative steps 1207-1209, as a non-limiting example) “determine, responsive to identification of the evaluation, a routine to perform the evaluation, wherein the routine includes a plurality of actions that correspond to the evaluation;” ([col 29 line 8] In step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof) “retrieve, from a database, a plurality of control parameters configured to cause the building equipment to perform the plurality of actions” ([col 26 line 15] One non-limiting example of such correlation is that of the Pressure Independent VAV Test where the airflow set point, or CFM setpoint, of the testing program needs to be correlated to a corresponding point within the BAS. In order for the test to function properly, the test variable of the airflow set point must be linked to the correct value within the BAS to ensure the commands are being sent to the proper location. Based on nomenclature, point object properties and the like, the correlation software will determine according to various embodiments the point that best correlates to airflow set point and link that point to the correct variable within the testing program. Other correlations of this nature and otherwise may be envisioned, as should likewise be considered within the scope and spirit of the present disclosure. [col 27 line 14] In other embodiments, so as to preserve the automated nature of the system 200 described herein, the user selection may be performed via cross-reference of the test(s) and/or test configurations (see also test parameters 403 of FIG. 3) against user parameters 405 as may have been pre-established and/or otherwise pre-determined by one or more users of the system and stored within one or more databases associated with the data module 400 or otherwise (e.g., in database 1110).[col 28 line 38] Returning to FIG. 6A, it may thus be understood that upon execution of step 1202, in which all of the devices (e.g., VAV controllers) to be tests are read/retrieved from the database 1214 (which should be understood as analogous to database 1110 and to be accessible or otherwise maintained via the data module 400 described elsewhere herein), the system 200 may be configured to proceed into the sub-loop process governed by steps 1203-1211, each as will be described in turn, below; wherein when the execution of VAV feature testing it retrieves from the database the parameters for adjustment to the iterative adjustments and the linkage between physical devices and data points in the BAS/BMS) “and transmit, to the building equipment, control signals to cause the building equipment to execute the routine by adjusting values for the plurality of control parameters” ([col 23 line 41] the automated testing system 200 is configured to establish communication with the BAS 100, as may be also referred to as the building “automation system” or more generally as a “control system” based at least in part upon its configuration in which it is designed to control various components and systems of components in a building or other analogous structure. In certain embodiments, step 1001 may be performed by the configuration module 500 as described previously herein. In any of these and still other embodiments, it should be understood that execution of step 1001 is configured to at least in part initiate the automated testing sequence conducted via the system 200 by at least ensuring that an operable communication link (e.g., via a network 130 or otherwise) exists between the system 200 and the BAS 100. [col 29 line 8] In step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof).
In regards to Claim 9 and 17, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 1, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 9, and the memory itself corresponds with the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 17. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1, and thus accordingly, claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 2, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 1, wherein a first control parameter of the plurality of control parameters includes a status parameter for the building equipment, and wherein a second control parameter of the plurality of control parameters includes a building parameter controllable by the building equipment” ([col 7 line 31] In a simple and non-limiting example of performance testing, a single pressure independent variable air volume terminal unit (VAV Box) may be tested to determine its airflow minimum and maximum capabilities. In this exemplary and non-limiting test, as will be described in further detail elsewhere herein, the airflow set-point may be incrementally commanded from zero to a value determined to be beyond the VAV Box's maximum capacity. Airflow feedback is recorded throughout the test. The analysis conducted may thus comprise examining the lower end of the airflow feedback for signal stability; once the signal stabilizes within a tolerance, the minimum airflow value of the VAV box can be determined. At the upper end of the data set, maximum airflow is determined to be the value in which an increase in airflow set-point does not result in a significant increase in airflow feedback. The VAV boxes minimum and maximum airflow capacities may be thus determined and compared to what is expected of the VAV boxes performance, which can also be automated according to the various embodiments of the present invention described herein; wherein the airflow feedback or capacities is the status parameter and the airflow setpoint is the parameter controllable).
In regards to Claim 10 and 18, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 2, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 10, and the memory itself corresponds with the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18. Claims 10 and 18 are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2, and thus accordingly, claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 3, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 1, wherein transmitting the control signals to execute the routine includes: adjusting a building parameter from a first value to a second value to trigger a response from the building equipment” ([col 29 line 8] n step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof) “monitoring the response of the building equipment;” ([col 29 line 45] In conjunction with step 1210, although illustrated in FIG. 6A as sequential thereto, the system 200 according to various embodiments is configured in step 1211 to stop logging BAS point data and to store all captured test data and/or logs associated therewith to one or more databases 1214 (or database 1110 or any of one or more databases associated with and accessible via the data module 400, as previously described herein) Upon completion of step 1211, testing is considered complete according to various embodiments—at least with respect to the exemplary VAV terminal device controller and testing proceeds to step 1212, which may be understood with reference to FIG. 3 as the transmission and/or transfer of execution from the testing tool 610 to the analysis tool 615, the latter of which is configured to perform one more data analyses and/or manipulations upon the test data 612 captured (and stored in step 1211)) “and evaluating, based on the response of the building equipment, the performance of the building equipment with respect to the one or more features” ([col 29 line 61] In conjunction with step 1210, although illustrated in FIG. 6A as sequential thereto, the system 200 according to various embodiments is configured in step 1211 to stop logging BAS point data and to store all captured test data and/or logs associated therewith to one or more databases 1214 (or database 1110 or any of one or more databases associated with and accessible via the data module 400, as previously described herein) Upon completion of step 1211, testing is considered complete according to various embodiments—at least with respect to the exemplary VAV terminal device controller and testing proceeds to step 1212, which may be understood with reference to FIG. 3 as the transmission and/or transfer of execution from the testing tool 610 to the analysis tool 615, the latter of which is configured to perform one more data analyses and/or manipulations upon the test data 612 captured (and stored in step 1211); wherein an analysis is considered an evaluation).
In regards to Claim 11 and 19, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 3, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 11, and the memory itself corresponds with the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 19. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3, and thus accordingly, claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 5, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 1, wherein identifying the evaluation includes: selecting the evaluation from a plurality of evaluations capable of testing the performance of the building equipment with respect to the one or more features” ([col 21 line 33] Execution of the testing tool 610 according to various embodiments comprises at least some implementation of a testing procedure, as has been configured via the configuration module 500 and/or at least selected or otherwise authorized by one or more users of the system, whether at a prior point in time such that the testing occurs in an automated fashion from a real-time perspective or otherwise. In this regard, it should be understood that execution of the testing tool 610 is based at least in part upon receipt or (or retrieval of) at least a portion of test parameters 403 and user parameters 405 as have been previously described herein; [col 23 line 30] It should be understood that according to various embodiments, the process illustrated by flowchart 1000 in FIG. 4 can be applied as a single pass application. In other embodiments, however, the system 200 (or the modules, tools, software, and/or applications associated therewith and/or contained therein, as have been previously described) may be configured to loop the sequence at any delay interval including zero. In certain embodiments the delay interval may be user-adjustable at any time; in other embodiments, the delay interval may be pre-established or pre-determined, whether by a user or otherwise; wherein the singular or multiple tests, and the user-defined delays therebetween, are the selected evaluations from a plurality of evaluations; [col 26 line 15] One non-limiting example of such correlation is that of the Pressure Independent VAV Test where the airflow set point, or CFM setpoint, of the testing program needs to be correlated to a corresponding point within the BAS. In order for the test to function properly, the test variable of the airflow set point must be linked to the correct value within the BAS to ensure the commands are being sent to the proper location. Based on nomenclature, point object properties and the like, the correlation software will determine according to various embodiments the point that best correlates to airflow set point and link that point to the correct variable within the testing program; [col 28 line 1] Turning now to FIG. 6A, such illustrates an exemplary activity diagram 1200 detailing a generic Variable-Air-Volume (VAV) Functional & Performance Test (VAV Test) that may be conducted by the system 200 according to various embodiments; wherein the different evaluations for a VAV test include at least pressure independent and generic tests for a specific VAV according to those selected by a user).
In regards to Claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 5, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 13. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 5, and thus accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 6, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 5, wherein selecting the evaluation from the plurality of evaluations includes: determining, based on the plurality of parameters, one or more aspects of the evaluation that correlate to the one or more features of the building equipment; and selecting the evaluation from the plurality of evaluations responsive to determination of the one or more aspects” ([col 29 line 8] In step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof; wherein the aspect is the setting of different values for airflow in a different manner for testing the VAV, and correlate to the airflow of that particular VAV).
In regards to Claim 14, the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 6, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 14. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 6, and thus accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 7, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 1, wherein determining the routine to perform the evaluation includes: selecting the routine from a plurality of routines capable of generating performance data sufficient to perform the evaluation” ([col 29 line 8] In step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof; wherein the routine is whether to use sequential, incremental or exponential values because all are capable of testing airflow performance for an evaluation).
In regards to Claim 15, the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 7, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 15. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7, and thus accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
In regards to Claim 8, Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 7, wherein selecting the routine from the plurality of routines includes: determining that the plurality of actions correlate to one or more aspects of the evaluation; and selecting the routine from the plurality of routines responsive to determination of the correlation between the plurality of actions and the one or more aspects” ([col 29 line 8] In step 1206 according to various embodiments, the system 200 initiates the iterative test sequence, with command of the airflow set-point (in the non-limiting example of a VAV terminal device) to zero. Steps 1207-1209 iteratively adjust the airflow set-point to a next-desired value (e.g., 1), then the next-desired value (e.g., 2), continuing to a final desired value (e.g., N). In certain embodiments, it should be understood that the values need not be sequential (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, etc.); instead, such may be incremental (e.g., 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.) or otherwise (e.g., exponential, as in 0, 1, 2, 4, 16, 256, 65,536, etc.). Any of a variety of incremental or otherwise defined values may be envisioned, provided such are configured to demonstrate operation of the tested device over a range of characteristics that substantially cover an operational spectrum for the device. In this manner, functionality and/or performance of the device (or performance of multiple devices across a system thereof) may be tested and evaluated via the system 200. In certain embodiments, differing types of devices may be included within the system, with a VAV terminal device controller, such as that illustrated in FIG. 6A being but one non-limiting example thereof; wherein the aspect is the setting of different values for airflow in a different manner for testing the VAV in accordance with one of the sequential, incremental or exponential values, and correlate to the airflow of that particular piece of building equipment VAV for testing airflow of the VAV).
In regards to Claim 16, the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 8, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 16. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 8, and thus accordingly, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.(a)(2) in view of Berinato.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berinato as applied to claims 3, 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Reichl (US 20190310616, hereinafter Reichl).
In regards to Claim 4, Berinato teaches the building management system as incorporated by claim 3 above.
Berinato further teaches “The BMS of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: update, responsive to completion of the evaluation, the user interface to include an indication of the performance of the building equipment” (Fig. 7A-7D show performance report of CFM for VAV [col 30 line 8] upon completion of post-processing analysis algorithm execution in step 1212, the system 200 is configured according to various embodiments to, in step 1213 generate one or more reports for each device. The reports 712 (see FIG. 3) may be transmitted via email, made available via a webpage, or stored locally or remotely, however as may be desirable and/or based at least in part upon one or more user preferences or parameters 405 (see FIG. 3). In certain embodiments, along with reports, execution of step 1213 may additionally and/or alternatively generate one or more alerts 714 and/or instructions 716 (see FIG. 3). As a non-limiting example, such instructions 716 may comprise one or more commands (computer-readable or otherwise) to set BAS points to new values based at least in part upon the test and analysis results, so as to improve overall operation of the device and/or a system in which the device resides. Exemplary reports 712 may be seen in FIGS. 7A-7D and FIG. 8; [col 12 line 40] In various embodiments, the program modules 400, 500, 600, 700 are executed by the automated testing system 200 and are configured to generate data and/or test results, reports, instructions, notifications/alerts, and/or one or more graphical user interfaces for the display thereof, all accessible and/or transmittable to various users of the system 20. In certain embodiments, the user interfaces, reports, instructions, and/or notifications/alerts may be remotely accessible (e.g., in a distributed fashion) via one or more networks 130, which may include the Internet or other feasible communications network, as previously discussed and described herein to include a variety of protocols, such as the non-limiting example of EtherNet/IP. In at least one embodiment, data may be transmitted via the one or more networks 130 to remotely located users in possession of one or more mobile devices 300; wherein the reports are accessible by user interface such as mobile device 300) “wherein the indication of the performance of the building equipment includes: a first string to indicate the evaluation that was performed;” (Fig. 7A-7D show text strings at top showing which tests were performed in each graph (i.e. as found, first, second and third tuning iteration [col 32 line 9] For example, in FIG. 6A, execution of step 1213 resulted in generation of at least one or more such reports, upon completion of iterative tests upon a VAV terminal device controller. With this context, it may be understood that the sequential charts of FIGS. 7A-7D represent charts that may be generated via the system 200 (e.g., via distribution module 700 as previously detailed herein) so as to graphically convey to one or more users of the system the results obtained via first, second, and third tuning iterations following observation of an “as found” condition (e.g., a zero set value condition, as detailed in FIG. 6A). As may be seen from considering the sequence of illustrates in FIGS. 7A-7D, the iterative tunings of the device under testing therein results in the “actual CFM” plot of actual recorded and/or otherwise collected data progressively move so as to closer and more fully match the CFM set-point value as would be anticipated. In this manner, the actual functionality and/or performance of a device may be improved such that it better mirrors anticipated or otherwise optimally-desired characteristics).
Berinato fails to teach “and a second string to explain the performance of the building equipment”.
Reichl teaches “and a second string to explain the performance of the building equipment” ([0099] The test executor 614 provides the results (i.e., indications of whether the test logic was passed or failed) to the results aggregator 616. [0100] The results aggregator 616 receives the results for each control sequence and compiles the results into a report. The report is provided top to the graphical user interface generator 606, which generates a graphical user interface including the results on client device 504. In some embodiments, raw data relating to the expected system behavior is provided to the graphical user interface generator 606 for inclusion in a graphical user interface. A user is thereby presented with the results of the control sequence verification tests requested by the user, without the need for user intervention in designing or running the tests; wherein a pass/fail is an explanation of performance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the instant invention to have taken the report that provides strings (text) and graphs in a report for a building management system that indicate which tests were performed and provide graphical indication of the tests performance, and modify the text with the pass/fail text of Reichl such that the three iterations of testing in 7A-7C would be failures (i.e. performance not the best) while the fourth iteration in 7D would indicate passing, because it would gain the obvious benefit of more easily showing to a user which tests were passing and which were failing to meet particular performance objectives. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known use of pass/fail text as provided to a user by Reichl, and incorporate it into the report of Berinato in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 12 and 20, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter as recited by claim 4, albeit in different statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the previously identified memory of automation test system 200 of Berinato (see Fig. 2A) stores instruction that perform a method of claim 12, and the memory itself corresponds with the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 20. Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 4, and thus accordingly, claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under Berinato in view of Reichl.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220197234 (Patil) – teaches a VAV with cold and hot commissioning testing performed with a report generated afterwards
US 20180164993 (Zummo et al.) – teaches an interface for establishing tests and testing building equipment
US 20170357607 (Cayemberg et al.) – teaches a BMS with automatic device discovery and mapping to building equipment for automation purposes
US 20170357253 (Kilpatrick et al.) – teaches an automation system with integrated testing for establishing and testing automation equipment
US 20130158714 (Barton et al.) – teaches an HVAC system with automated performance testing using an HVAC controller
US 20080231437 (Singhal et al.) – teaches a BMS that pairs sensors to actuators in response to a test for finding relationships between building equipment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights