Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11 and 16, 17 have been amended.
Claims 7-10, 15 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-6, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 16-18 and 20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-6 and 11-14 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 16 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 11) recites the following steps:
receiving, building equipment inputs, wherein the number of devices are included among a number of zones of the facility and a number of wiring loops of the facility, and wherein the building equipment inputs include a device state of each of the number of devices;
determining, a status of the number of devices based on the device state of each of the number of devices included in the received building equipment inputs,
generating, safety scores based on the determined status of the number of devices by determining a site impact value each device of the number of devices has on the facility based on a number of site impact safety factors,
wherein determining safety scores includes determining: a first safety score for the facility; a second safety score for a particular zone of the number of zones of the facility; a third safety score for the control panel of an event system of the facility; and a fourth safety score for a particular wiring loop of the number of wiring loops
generating, an instruction for improving at least one of the safety scores, wherein the instruction includes steps for improving the at least one of the safety scores.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) generating safety scores for a facility (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 11 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a computing device from a number of devices of an event system in the facility via a control panel,
A computing device, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to (Claim 1)
A system for generating safety scores for a facility, comprising: a control panel of an event system in the facility (Claim 11)
An event system
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of "by polling respective memories of the number of devices” serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2, 3, 13 and 20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 4-6, 12, 14, 17 and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
device
a building equipment database
computing device
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
Examiner conducted a thorough search of the body of available prior art (see attached documents regards PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited and PE2E Search History). Notably, Examiner discovered several patent literature documents that taught aspects of the invention, but no single disclosure taught “every element required by the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation” [MPEP § 2131] to make a 35 USC § 102 rejection. Further, Examiner considered the individual elements of the recited claims taught across the prior art cited below, but did not find it obvious to combine such disclosures [MPEP § 2142] to make a 35 USC § 103 rejection. In particular, Warake et al., U.S. Publication No. 2024/0135294 discloses, generating multiple building scores to complete an overall health score of building to aid in improvement recommendations is silent with respect to safety score based on a particular wiring loop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The character of the claims as amended is technical in nature and not directed toward an abstract idea. The computing device, system, and method include claim steps that result in integration of the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of generating an instruction for improving safety scores for a facility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing Step 2A Prong 2, when the abstract idea assessment is perform at Prong I. The claims recited a mental process of receiving information, making determinations; generating scores and generating instruction for improvement. All of these steps can be performed by mental process, judgment and observation. The question of whether the claims are integrated into a practical application are evaluated in the next step. See above.
Applicant Argues: Applicant asserts that the claims are nevertheless patent-eligible under a safe harbor provided in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd V CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The Federal Circuit's holding in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd V CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) provides two safe harbors for patent-eligible inventions, namely, inventions which (1) "improve the functionality of the computer itself," or (2) "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field."
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, generating a score for a facility based on a status is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of generating a facility score based on a status is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: When claims recite a technological solution to a technological problem, the additional elements in the claims are more than instructions to "apply it." See, MPEP § 2106.05(±)(1); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). At least one problem to be solved by the present application is described in the Specification at paragraph [0011]: "there may be instances of the facility having an expected safety level, but the facility is not actually as safe as a user expects the facility to be. However, currently there is no way to quantify a safety level of the facility for a user."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “determining…” and “generating…" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic memory and processor. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully submits that the claims improve existing technology by generating a safety score for a facility, which can quantify a safety level for a facility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reiterates from the 101 rejection above that the limitations highlighted above represent a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. These claimed steps relate to concepts that merely involve receiving, evaluating and judging data. This concept falls under the "Mental Processes" abstract idea grouping. There is nothing that precludes these steps from being performed in the human mind, and there is nothing limiting or excluding regarding the real-time implementation, as observations and judgements occur in real-time all the time. For example, a user could look into a facility, observe/determine that all of the smoke detectors were flashing low battery lights (observation); generate a score based on the status of devices (low battery) and generate instructions to replace the batteries. This does not represent a technical improvement. As such, the examiner is not persuaded by applicant's argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights