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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the election response filed on 12 June 2026.
Claims 21-28 have been added.
Claims 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure but prior to any action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 21 and 27 recite limitations for a method, system and medium for obtaining equipment operating data, detecting or predicting faults, determining service provider resources available to perform service, and generating a service schedule by performing an optimization. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Obtaining equipment data, detecting or predicting faults, determining service provider resources available to perform a service and generating a schedule illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. But for the system comprising a controller comprising memory devices storing instructions that when executed by processors cause the processors to perform the methodology and the media storing executable instructions, the claims encompass a user simply observing, analyzing and planning their mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including initiating an automated action to perform the plurality of service events, as well as the controller, memory, media and processors that are caused to execute the obtaining, detecting or predicting, determining and generating steps. Initiating an automated action is recited at a high level of generality and the specification in at least [0006, 0015-0018, 0021-0024, 0033-0038] describes that the initiated automated action includes the ability to merely distribute or transmit the schedule, which constitutes insignificant extra solution activity since it is mere data transmission. The processors that perform the obtaining, detecting or predicting, determining and generating steps are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the initiating and automated action steps that were considered transmission and thus extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-12, 22-26 and 28 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 21 and 27 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including descriptions of the equipment sites, describing that the generation of the service schedule includes classifying faults, describing that the detecting or predicting comprises gathering addition data, that the set of constraints comprises a limit or penalty based on time or distance, that the optimization comprises optimizing an objective function, i.e. a mathematical concept/formula, describing the service provider resources and associated data, constraints, associated tools, location information, expertise, and assignments of resources to services. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe causing the human technicians to perform service events, e.g. by providing them with the schedule and distributing the schedule, that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more for the same reasons and rationale set forth above.
Examiner recommends amending the claims to exclude the ability to merely transmit instructions or the schedule to a human technician so that the claims actively demonstrate next level control, similar to Diamond v. Diehr.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 21-28 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2022/0100802) in view of Hafernik et al. (US 2021/0278833) further in view of Turney et al. (US 2019/0325368)
As per Claim 1 Saini teaches:
A method comprising:
obtaining equipment operating data characterizing operation of a plurality of devices of equipment distributed across a plurality of equipment sites (Saini in at least [0102] describes monitoring operating data corresponding to equipment, spaces and or points of a building management system, see also [0062-0069, 0076, 0106, 0129, 0133]);
detecting or predicting a plurality of faults in the operation of the plurality of devices of equipment based on the equipment operating data (Saini in at least [0008, 0016, 0019, 0031, 0065, 0074, 0076, 0101-0104, 0128-0123] describe detecting faults based on operating data, data analytics and diagnostics);
generating a service schedule comprising a plurality of service events based on the plurality of faults and the service provider resources (Saini in at least [0136] describes transmitting a generated work order and/or scheduling a maintenance activity for faulty equipment by transmitting the order/activity to a particular user device associated with a service technician or maintenance worker), the plurality of service events comprising at least one on- site service event using the on-site service provider resources, performing an optimization subject to a set of constraints based on the service provider resources and the plurality of faults (Saini in at least [0065, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0076-0078, 0136] describe optimizing control actions, building performance, and resource usage when determining the maintenance and corrective actions for detected faults); and
initiating an automated action to perform the plurality of service events at corresponding times and locations defined by the service schedule (Saini in at least [0019, 0104, 0135-0136] describe initiating automated corrective actions according to the determined schedule).
Saini in at least [0136] describes transmitting a generated work order and/or scheduling a maintenance activity for faulty equipment by transmitting the order/activity to a particular user device associated with a service technician or maintenance worker at a facility, e.g. on-site.
Saini does not explicitly recite determining their availability to perform the service or that they can be remote or on-site, that the schedule includes remote and on-site events, and that the schedule is generated by optimizing a set of constraints. However, Hafernik teaches a support system for automated building management assistance including fault detection and diagnostics relating to a maintenance event for a building. Hafernik further teaches:
determining service provider resources available to perform service on the plurality of devices of equipment, the service provider resources comprising remote service provider resources and on-site service provider resources (Hafernik in at least [0021-0037] describes utilizing on-site technicians as well as remote technical support staff as resources to perform maintenance repairs, resource availability and status are tracked and utilized during the task assignment and maintenance event for repair);
generating a service schedule comprising a plurality of service events based on the plurality of faults and the service provider resources, the plurality of service events comprising at least one remote service event using the remote service provider resources and at least one on- site service event using the on-site service provider resources (Hafernik in at least [0020-0037] describes scheduling and tracking a schedule of maintenance/repair events where an onsite technician and remote technical support staff work together to provide the maintenance service to repair the detected fault),
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to schedule a plurality of service events based on faults and resources to include the techniques for considering availability of on-site and remote resources because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By utilizing both remote and onsite available resources, the combination establishes a support system that provides access to an enormous amount of data which can reduce the time and cost associated with resolving maintenance or advanced issues (Hafernik [0004-0006]).
Saini in at least [0065, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0076-0078, 0136] describes optimizing control actions, building performance, and resource usage when determining the maintenance and corrective actions for detected faults. Neither Saini nor Hafernik explicitly recite generating a schedule by performing an optimization subject to a set of constraints for the resources and faults.
However, Turney teaches modeling predictive maintenance with budgetary constraints. Turney further teaches:
wherein the service schedule is generated by performing an optimization subject to a set of constraints based on the service provider resources and the plurality of faults (Turney in at least [0002-0012, 0014, 0018-0024, 0052-0066, 0099-0100, 0102, 0104, 0110-0112, 0131, 0141-0144, 0171-0174, 0221-0230 , 0287-0292] describe generating a maintenance schedule by performing optimizations on an objective function subject to a set of constraints based on resources and faults detected);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to generate a maintenance service schedule to include the techniques for optimization subject to constraints based on resources and faults because each of the each of the recited elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By optimizing the objective function subject to constraints based on resources and faults the combination enables determination of an optimal maintenance strategy for building equipment that minimizes cost.
As per Claim 2 Saini further teaches:
wherein the plurality of equipment sites comprise a building site and the equipment comprise HVAC equipment located at the building site (Saini in at least Fig. 1 illustrates a plurality of building equipment at a site including HVAC equipment, see [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 3 Saini further teaches:
wherein initiating the automated action comprises causing one or more service technicians to perform the plurality of service events defined by the service schedule (Saini in at least [0019, 0104, 0135-0136] describe initiating automated corrective actions according to the determined schedule, the actions including notifications or alerts generated and transmitted to a user’s device providing a generated work order and/or maintenance activity that they are scheduled to perform).
As per Claim 4 Saini further teaches:
wherein initiating the automated action comprises distributing at least a portion of the service schedule to a plurality of technicians assigned to the plurality of service events (Saini in at least [0019, 0104, 0135-0136] describe initiating automated corrective actions according to the determined schedule, the actions including notifications or alerts generated and transmitted to a user’s device providing a generated work order and/or maintenance activity that they are scheduled to perform).
As per Claim 5 Saini further teaches:
wherein generating the service schedule comprises classifying the plurality of faults (Saini in at least Fig. 4 and [0065, 0074-0078] describes the fault detection and diagnostics which identifies and diagnoses faults using rules and data)
Saini does not explicitly recite that the faults are classified as capable of being fixed remotely or onsite.
as either (i) remote fix faults capable of being fixed remotely by remote service technicians or (ii) on-site fix faults requiring on-site service technicians to travel to the equipment sites to perform the plurality of service events (Hafernik in at least [0020-0037] describes scheduling and tracking a schedule of maintenance/repair events where an onsite technician and remote technical support staff work together to provide the maintenance service to repair the detected fault, the system includes the ability to control or execute automated tasks remotely).
Hafernik is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 6 Saini further teaches:
wherein the automated action comprises taking action to resolve the fault remotely (Saini in at least [0019, 0104, 0136-0145] describe initiating automated corrective actions according to the determined schedule, the actions can include controlling building equipment to affect parameters associated with the building management system, equipment can be controlled by adjusting an operating parameter of equipment, turning the equipment off, , activating additional equipment, etc. remotely via computer interfaces as illustrated in at least Figs. 3-6).
As per Claim 7 Saini further teaches:
wherein detecting or predicting the plurality of faults comprises gathering additional data from an equipment site to diagnose a root cause of a detected or predicted fault (Saini in at least [0077 and 0137] describes the fault detection and diagnostics layer which is configured to output a specific identification of the faulty component or cause of the fault).
As per Claim 8 Saini does not explicitly recite but Hafernik further teaches in at least [0024-0031, 0047, 0059-0062] determining and utilizing the location of technicians and events to determine and optimize dispatching of resources for performing repairs. Neither Saini nor Hafernik explicitly recite penalties associated with constraints. However, Turney further teaches:
wherein the set of constraints comprises a limit or penalty based on information associated with the plurality of service events in the service schedule (Turney in at least [0002-0012, 0014, 0018-0024, 0052-0066, 0099-0100, 0102, 0104, 0110-0112, 0131, 0141-0144, 0171-0174, 0221-0230 , 0287-0292] describe generating a maintenance schedule by performing optimizations on an objective function subject to a set of constraints including penalties based on resources and faults detected, [0037, 0062, 0070, 0073, 0095, 0105, 0108, 0125, 0127, 0195-0196, 0240, 0277, 0283, 0285, 0305, 0341-0349, 0371] describe utilizing location and time information when performing the constraint based optimization along with elapsed time tracking between maintenance and installation).
Turney is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth int eh rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 9 Saini in at least [0065, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0076-0078, 0136] describe optimizing control actions, building performance, and resource usage when determining the maintenance and corrective actions for detected faults but does not explicitly recite optimizing an objective function that quantifies service event value or time elapsed between faults. Neither Saini nor Hafernik explicitly recite but Turney further teaches:
wherein the optimization comprises optimizing an objective function that quantifies a total value of the plurality of service events based on at least one of (i) corresponding criticalities of the plurality of faults or (ii) corresponding amounts of time elapsed between times at which the plurality of faults are detected and the times defined by the plurality of service events (Turney in at least [0002-0012, 0014, 0018-0024, 0050-0066, 0099-0100, 0102, 0104, 0110-0118, 0131, 0141-0144, 0171-0186, 0221-0230 , 0287-0292] describe generating a maintenance schedule by performing optimizations on an objective function subject to a set of constraints based on resources and faults detected, the optimization includes quantifying cost based on elapsed time and duration of each step and between events as well as the utilization of critical values).
Turney is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth int eh rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claims 21-28 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in claims 1-9 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-9 above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2022/0100802) in view of Hafernik et al. (US 2021/0278833) further in view of Turney et al. (US 2019/0325368) further in view of Wetzer et al. (US 2004/0254764)
As per Claim 10 Saini does not explicitly recite but Hafernik further describes utilizing the availability of resources when determining service providers in at least [0021-0037]. None of Saini, Hafernik or Turney explicitly recite considering the expertise of resources and utilizing that as a constraint. However, Wetzer teaches managing maintenance of an item of equipment both availability and experience of the workers are utilized (Wetzer [0041, 0056]). Wetzer further describes:
wherein (i) the service provider resources comprise times of availability and expertise of a plurality of service technicians and (ii) the constraints comprise amounts of time and expertise required to perform the corresponding service events (Wetzer in at least [0036, 0041, 0056, 0068-0075] describe data including time/availability and experience/qualification of workers and utilizing that worker data when optimizing a maintenance schedule).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to generate a maintenance service schedule based on resource information and constraints to include the techniques for determining a maintenance subject to constraints based on resource data including availability and expertise/qualifications because each of the recited elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By determining an ideal schedule subject to constraints based on resource availability, expertise and other resource data the combination enables determination of an optimal maintenance strategy for building equipment that minimizes cost and improves resource utilization.
As per Claim 11 Saini does not explicitly recite but Hafernik further teaches location information associated with service providers in at least [0024-0031, 0047, 0059-0062] describing determining and utilizing the location of technicians and events to determine and optimize dispatching of resources for performing repairs. None Saini, Hafernik or Turney explicitly recite but Wetzer further teaches:
wherein the service provider resources vary by geographic region and indicate at least one of different numbers of service technicians, different levels of expertise of the service technicians, or different tools or parts available to the service technicians based on the geographic region in which the fault is detected or predicted (Wetzer in at least [0023, 0026, 0035-37, 0056, 0069-0071] describe the resource planner and maintenance controller utilizing the geographic locations of different workers, equipment and facilities as well as the different levels of experience or qualifications of workers and tools/equipment available when planned maintenance).
Wetzer is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 10 above.
As per Claim 12 None of Saini, Hafernik, nor Turney explicitly recite but Wetzer further teaches:
wherein (i) the service provider resources comprise one or more vehicles or tools used to perform the plurality of service events and (ii) performing the optimization comprises assigning the one or more vehicles or tools to the plurality of service events (Wetzer in at least [0023, 0026, 0035-0037, 0041-0049, 0054-0056, 0068, 0090-0092, 0101-0103, 0109, 0114-0115, 0121] describe resource data include worker data as well as tools and equipment information used when optimizing and planning the maintenance schedule where tool data availability dates and assignment can be utilized in the planning of particular maintenance tasks).
Wetzer is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis et al. (US 10,229,394) Automatically detecting failures and sending diagnostic information when scheduling equipment repairs in a smart environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights