DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/28/26 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 10 and 19 recite a method and a computer readable medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 1 serves as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mental processes
a sensor array structured to provide sensor data indicative of temperature, pressure, and humidity in an interior space; and
one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive the sensor data from the sensor array,
generate, based on the sensor data, trend data indicative of the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the interior space over a period of time,
generate, based on the trend data, a prediction of future trend data for the interior space,
receive a compliance standard defined by a third-party, wherein the compliance standard includes a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints,
compare at least one of the sensor data or the prediction to the plurality of non-manual entry setpoints of the compliance standard,
receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space, and
initiate an automated response process in response to a determining that at least one of the sensor data or the prediction does not meet the compliance standard, the automated response process comprising controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space.
These limitations constitute receiving data, generating data, and comparing data, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting that the system involves:
Claim 1: a sensor array, one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, one or more primary building devices;
Claim 10: a sensor array, a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system; and
Claim 19: a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, a sensor array, and a machine learning engine,
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which may be considered certain methods of organizing human activity
a sensor array structured to provide sensor data indicative of temperature, pressure, and humidity in an interior space; and
one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive the sensor data from the sensor array,
generate, based on the sensor data, trend data indicative of the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the interior space over a period of time,
generate, based on the trend data, a prediction of future trend data for the interior space,
receive a compliance standard defined by a third-party, wherein the compliance standard includes a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints,
compare at least one of the sensor data or the prediction to the plurality of non-manual entry setpoints of the compliance standard,
receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space, and
initiate an automated response process in response to a determining that at least one of the sensor data or the prediction does not meet the compliance standard, the automated response process comprising controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space.
These limitations constitute a system designed to ensure that a building meets temperature, pressure, and humidity compliance standards set by governmental or non-governmental entities (Specification ¶¶2-4), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claim 1: a sensor array, one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, one or more primary building devices;
Claim 10: a sensor array, a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system; and
Claim 19: a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, a sensor array, and a machine learning engine.
The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving and initiating limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving and initiating limitations (as an aside, Examiner notes that the “initiating” limitation could simply be sending a signal) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec,). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, and 11-13 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 10 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 10; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 5, 14, and 15 further recites the additional element of a remote system or a user device, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does 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.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 further recites the additional element of a predictive model, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does 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.
Claim 19 further recites the additional element of a user device and one or more building devices, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does 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.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “wherein the compliance standard includes a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints” is not described in the specification as written. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, particularly the cited portions of the specification ([0073] and [0130]) and did not find the cited limitation. Claim 10 is rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 1: “to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space" is not described in the specification as written. Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, particularly the cited portions of the specification ([0073] and [0130]) and did not find the cited limitation. Claim 10 and claim 19 are rejected on a similar basis.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modi et al. (US 20140156085), in view of Rosebraugh (US 20150332007).
Referring to claim 1:
Modi discloses a building management system (BMS) comprising:
a sensor array structured to provide sensor data indicative of temperature, ... and humidity in an interior space (Modi [0058][0061][0062][0084] ...the plurality of sensors may include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a PIR sensor, a proximity sensor, an ambient light sensor, and or other sensors....[0084]); and
one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon (Modi [0080]-[0082] where the unit includes memory and a microprocessor) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive the sensor data from the sensor array (Modi [0058][0061][0062] [0084] where the unit interfaces with various sensors, as indicated in at least [0058] and [0084]),
generate, based on the sensor data, trend data indicative of the temperature, ..., and humidity of the interior space over a period of time (Modi [0015][0095][0096][0127] ...the parameterized model may be further based on historical data acquired during associated historical periods for one or more of the following data types: seasonal climate change data, humidity data...[0015] and For each such learning cycle, the thermostat automatically (without requiring any affirmative instruction or teaching from the user) tracks the temperature change....[0095]),
generate, based on the trend data, a prediction of future trend data for the interior space (Modi [0121]-[0123][0127] The control strategy may also define a "control trajectory" or ambient temperature trajectory 1004-1010, which refers to a predicted trajectory of an ambient temperature of the enclosure due to a respective defined control strategy heating operation[0122]),
receive a compliance standard defined by a third-party, wherein the compliance standard includes a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints (Modi [0059][0067][0076][0081][0090][0098][0142][0143][0146]-[0148] [0151][0167]; This setpoint change can be invoked by a user by using either the walk-up dial or a remote network access facility, or alternatively can be when there is a scheduled setpoint change encountered that changes the current operating setpoint temperature [0098] where the setpoint may be changed based on past user input, i.e., a schedule, which provides a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints since the future setpoints are not manually entered each time, and further, the description of the compliance standard as including “a plurality of non-manual entry setpoints” is merely descriptive, does not alter the scope of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight),
compare at least one of the sensor data or the prediction to the plurality of non-manual entry setpoints of the compliance standard (Modi [0067][0090] [0098][0142][0143][0146]-[0148][0151][0167] ...monitor sensors used to detect ambient temperature conditions, and wake the head unit processing system 732 and/or the electronic display when it is determined that a maintenance band threshold has been crossed and/or an anticipated wakeup time or event has occurred [0090] and ...the predictive algorithm may be executed by applying each candidate control strategy to the parameterized model to predict a corresponding ambient temperature trajectory. AT block 2112, the radiant heating system may be controlled according to the determined optimal control strategy using the maintenance band [0167]), and
initiate an automated response process in response to a determining that at least one of the sensor data or the prediction does not meet the compliance standard (Modi [0090][0142][0143][0146]-[0148][0151][0167] wherein the system is cycled on and off as appropriate, as described in at least [0146]-[0148]), the automated response process includes controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space (Modi [0056][0090][0142][0143][0146]-[0148][0151][0167] wherein the system is cycled on and off as appropriate, as described in at least [0146]-[0148] and where “to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space” is not taught by Modi; however, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of the limitation, does not further limit the structure of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight; regardless, this limitation is addressed further below).
Modi discloses a system for controlling an environment using a predicative model (abstract). Modi does not explicitly disclose said sensor array structured to provide sensor data indicative of...pressure... and; generate, based on the sensor data, trend data indicative of ...pressure...
However, Modi does contemplate applying its teachings to units having control over measurable characteristics other than temperature (e.g. pressure) and that the system may control multiple measurable characteristics (see Modi at [0056]). Examiner further notes that, as above, Modi discloses a sensor structure to provide sensor data indicative of temperature (Modi [0058][0061][0062][0084] ...the plurality of sensors may include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a PIR sensor, a proximity sensor, an ambient light sensor, and or other sensors....[0084]) and generating trend data indicative of temperature (Modi [0015][0095][0096] [0127] ...the parameterized model may be further based on historical data acquired during associated historical periods for one or more of the following data types: seasonal climate change data, humidity data...[0015] and For each such learning cycle, the thermostat automatically (without requiring any affirmative instruction or teaching from the user) tracks the temperature change....[0095]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Modi to incorporate sensor structures for pressure and generating trend data indicative of pressure similar to the sensor structures and trend data for temperature because this would provide a manner for applying the present teachings to units having control over measurable characteristics other than temperature (Modi at [0056]), thus aiding the user by governing additional types energy consuming systems.
Modi discloses a system for controlling an environment using a predicative model (abstract). Modi does not disclose receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space; and controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space.
However, Rosebraugh discloses a similar system for managing an environment (abstract). Rosebraugh discloses receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space {Rosebraugh [0047]-[0049]; an administration message can indicate that a patient is scheduled for a procedure (e.g., x-ray, MRI, CAT scan, etc.). The procedure can be associated with a schedule, a duration, etc. [0047]}; controlling one or more primary building devices to affect at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space {Rosebraugh [0047]-[0049]; the system can be configured to deliver environmental control message to return a room to compliance in advance of the patient's return. By resetting the environment control in advance of the patient's return, the system can insure compliance with any environmental requirements [0049]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Modi to incorporate receiving scheduling data and ensuring conflict is avoided with a scheduled event as taught by Rosebraugh because this would provide a manner for insuring compliance (Rosebraugh [0049]), thus aiding the user by avoiding costly fines.
Referring to claim 2:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a confidence level for the prediction, and compare the confidence level to a predetermined threshold, and wherein the automated response process is initiated when the confidence level is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (Modi [0022][0023][0151][0152] If the goodness of fit is below 0.3, the system may determine that the predictive controls should not be used and conventional bang-bang controls may be used[00152] which indicates that when the goodness of fit is .3 or above, the predictive controls should be used and where the goodness of fit is interpreted as confidence and where the automated response is the predictive controls which are initiated when the goodness of fit is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold of .3).
Referring to claim 3:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate a report summarizing the trend data and providing a time range when the sensor data is predicted to not meet the compliance standard (Modi [0094] and Fig. 8A As used herein, time to temperature ("T2T") refers to an estimate of the time remaining from the current point in time until the target temperature will be reached[0094] and where Fig. 8A at 809 indicates that T2T (time to temperature) is calculated and displayed).
Referring to claim 4:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the automated response process includes: generating a notification that indicates at least one building device associated with the at least one of the sensor data or the prediction that does not meet the compliance standard, and transmitting the notification to a user device (Modi [0098] and Fig. 8A At step 812, an initial estimate T2T(0) is computed using only the global model G, by mapping the value H.sub.F-H.sub.0=.DELTA.H(0) into T2T(0) using the global model G as shown in FIG. 8B. This initial estimate, which can be called a global-model initial estimate, can be shown immediately on the thermostat display, even in real time as the user turns the dial for the case of a manual walk-up setpoint change [0098] where the T2T estimate is a notification that indicates the system associated with the thermostat does not meet the compliance standard, which is the user’s setpoint temperature and where the thermostat is the user device).
Referring to claim 6:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein generating the prediction includes: executing a predictive model to generate a first prediction of future trend data, and determining, based on the first prediction of future trend data, a second prediction indicating a future compliance issue for a building device (Modi [0099]-[0100] where step 814 indicates a transition between the global-model estimate to the real-time model estimate of TT (time to temperature) and where the global-model estimate is used to find TT during the transition and where the first prediction is the global model estimate and the second prediction is the transition estimate of TT).
Referring to claim 7:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the sensor data is first sensor data, and wherein the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: control one or more primary building devices based on at least one of the sensor data or the prediction (Modi [0090][0142][0143][0146]-[0148][0151][0167] wherein the system is cycled on and off using the predictive model, as described in at least [0142]),
receive second sensor data from the sensor array, compare the second sensor data to the compliance standard to determine a reward value (Modi [0146]-[0148] where the actual room temperature values are provided at regular intervals and subsequent values are interpreted as second sensor data, and where the ambient temperatures are compared to the maintenance threshold to determine if the system will wake up and cycle off and where determining that the system has crossed the threshold is interpreted as determining a reward value of meeting the threshold), and
update the predictive model based on the reward value (Modi [0095][0096] The global model can subsequently be continuously improved using more data points as time goes forward, since each heating cycle represents yet another "experiment" for that enclosure to improve the "global model estimate," which can also be termed a "historical model estimate."[0096] where every cycle updates the predictive model based on the temperature changes).
Referring to claim 8:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to train the predictive model using historical temperature, pressure, and humidity data for the interior space (Modi [0015][0056][0095][0127] where humidity data is used in [0127] and the model is trained/learns, as is described in [0095] and where the system may be used for pressure, as described in [0056] and further explained in claim 1, supra).
Referring to claim 9:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the compliance standard is at least one of a regulatory standard, a government standard, or a medical services standard (Modi [0059][0067][0076][0081][0090][0098][0142][0143] [0146]-[0148][0151][0167]; This setpoint change can be invoked by a user by using either the walk-up dial or a remote network access facility, or alternatively can be when there is a scheduled setpoint change encountered that changes the current operating setpoint temperature [0098] where the description of the compliance standard as “a regulatory standard, a government standard, or a medical services standard” is merely descriptive, does not alter the scope of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight – See MPEP 2111.04).
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is the method claim associated with system claim 1 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claims 11, 12, and 14:
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected on the same basis as claims 2, 3, and 4, above.
Referring to claim 13:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the preemptive action includes controlling one or more primary building devices to alter operation before the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the area is outside the compliance standard {Modi [0108]; Using predictive controls, a heating or cooling operation may be discontinued or engaged even when the ambient temperature is within the temperature band window [0108]}.
Referring to claims 16-18:
Claims 16-18 are rejected on the same basis as claims 6-8, above.
Referring to claim 19:
Modi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving sensor information over time from a sensor array located in an interior space of a building (Modi [0058][0061] [0062][0084][0092] ...the plurality of sensors may include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a PIR sensor, a proximity sensor, an ambient light sensor, and or other sensors....[0084]);
receiving operational parameters from one or more primary building devices {Modi [0058][0081][0082]; Sensors incorporated in thermostat 110 may detect occupancy, temperature, light and other environmental conditions and influence the control and operation of HVAC system 120 [0058] where occupancy and light are operational parameters and The head unit processing function may further be configured to determine or sense occupancy 618 of a physical location, and to determine building characteristics 620 that can be used to determine time-to-temperature characteristics [0081] and The head unit processing function may also be configured to interface with a cloud management system 626 [0082]};
generating trend data indicative of the temperature, [pressure,] and humidity of the interior space over a period of time using a machine learning engine that receives the sensor information and the operational parameters (Modi [0015][0057][0081][0082][0095][0096][0127] and Fig. 4; ...the parameterized model may be further based on historical data acquired during associated historical periods for one or more of the following data types: seasonal climate change data, humidity data...[0015] and enclosure 100 illustrates a single-family dwelling type of enclosure using a learning thermostat 110 (also referred to for convenience as "thermostat 110") for the control of heating and cooling provided by an HVAC system 120 [0057] where the learning thermostat is the machine learning engine and For each such learning cycle, the thermostat automatically (without requiring any affirmative instruction or teaching from the user) tracks the temperature change....[0095] Modi does not explicitly teach the limitation in brackets (pressure); however, this is addressed below);
generating a future trend prediction of future trend data for the interior space using the machine learning engine (Modi [0121]-[0123][0127] The control strategy may also define a "control trajectory" or ambient temperature trajectory 1004-1010, which refers to a predicted trajectory of an ambient temperature of the enclosure due to a respective defined control strategy heating operation[0122]);
comparing the future trend prediction to a compliance standard (Modi [0067][0090][0098][0142][0143][0146]-[0148][0151][0167] ...monitor sensors used to detect ambient temperature conditions, and wake the head unit processing system 732 and/or the electronic display when it is determined that a maintenance band threshold has been crossed and/or an anticipated wakeup time or event has occurred [0090] and ...the predictive algorithm may be executed by applying each candidate control strategy to the parameterized model to predict a corresponding ambient temperature trajectory. AT block 2112, the radiant heating system may be controlled according to the determined optimal control strategy using the maintenance band [0167]);
generating a predicted future compliance issue based on the comparison of the future trend prediction to the compliance standard {Modi [0142]-[0148] [0167]; By iteratively running the prediction model over a defined amount of time steps or control intervals (e.g., 6 time steps over 60 minutes), a control strategy may be chosen, such that it minimizes overshoots and/or undershoots, while keeping the HVAC state changes to a minimum [0142]};
determining a confidence level for the predicted future compliance issue (Modi [0022][0023][0151][0152] If the goodness of fit is below 0.3, the system may determine that the predictive controls should not be used and conventional bang-bang controls may be used[00152];
in response to a determination that the confidence level is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, initiating an automated response process [to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space] (Modi [0022][0023][0151][0152] If the goodness of fit is below 0.3, the system may determine that the predictive controls should not be used and conventional bang-bang controls may be used[00152] which indicates that when the goodness of fit is .3 or above, the predictive controls should be used and where the goodness of fit is interpreted as confidence and where the automated response is the predictive controls which are initiated when the goodness of fit is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold of .3 and where “to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space” is not taught by Modi; however, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of the limitation, does not further limit the structure of the claim, and therefore, receives little patentable weight; regardless, this limitation is addressed further below).
Modi discloses a system for controlling an environment using a predicative model (abstract). Modi does not explicitly disclose generating trend data indicative of ...pressure...; and …ensure the at least one of the …pressure…
However, Modi does contemplate applying its teachings to units having control over measurable characteristics other than temperature (e.g. pressure) and that the system may control multiple measurable characteristics (see Modi at [0056]). Examiner further notes that, as above, Modi discloses a sensor structure to provide sensor data indicative of temperature (Modi [0058][0061][0062][0084] ...the plurality of sensors may include a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a PIR sensor, a proximity sensor, an ambient light sensor, and or other sensors....[0084]) and generating trend data indicative of temperature (Modi [0015][0095][0096] [0127] ...the parameterized model may be further based on historical data acquired during associated historical periods for one or more of the following data types: seasonal climate change data, humidity data...[0015] and For each such learning cycle, the thermostat automatically (without requiring any affirmative instruction or teaching from the user) tracks the temperature change....[0095]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Modi to incorporate pressure data and ensuring pressure is in compliance because this would provide a manner for applying the present teachings to units having control over measurable characteristics other than temperature (Modi at [0056]), thus aiding the user by governing additional types energy consuming systems.
Modi discloses a system for controlling an environment using a predicative model (abstract). Modi does not disclose receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space; and initiating an automated response process to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space.
However, Rosebraugh discloses a similar system for managing an environment (abstract). Rosebraugh discloses receive scheduling data including at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space {Rosebraugh [0047]-[0049]; an administration message can indicate that a patient is scheduled for a procedure (e.g., x-ray, MRI, CAT scan, etc.). The procedure can be associated with a schedule, a duration, etc. [0047]}; initiating an automated response process to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space to ensure the at least one of the temperature, pressure, or humidity of the interior space is within the compliance standard while avoiding a conflict with the at least one scheduled event associated with the interior of the space {Rosebraugh [0047]-[0049]; the system can be configured to deliver environmental control message to return a room to compliance in advance of the patient's return. By resetting the environment control in advance of the patient's return, the system can insure compliance with any environmental requirements [0049]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Modi to incorporate receiving scheduling data and ensuring conflict is avoided with a scheduled event as taught by Rosebraugh because this would provide a manner for insuring compliance (Rosebraugh [0049]), thus aiding the user by avoiding costly fines.
Referring to claim 20:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses wherein the automated response process includes at least one of: transmitting a notification to a user device; generating a work order for one or more building devices associated with the predicted future compliance issue; or controlling the one or more building devices to prevent the predicted future compliance issue (Modi [0098] and Fig. 8A At step 812, an initial estimate T2T(0) is computed using only the global model G, by mapping the value H.sub.F-H.sub.0=.DELTA.H(0) into T2T(0) using the global model G as shown in FIG. 8B. This initial estimate, which can be called a global-model initial estimate, can be shown immediately on the thermostat display, even in real time as the user turns the dial for the case of a manual walk-up setpoint change [0098] where the T2T estimate is a notification that indicates the system associated with the thermostat does not meet the compliance standard, which is the user’s setpoint temperature and where the thermostat is the user device).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modi et al. (US 20140156085), in view of Rosebraugh (US 20150332007), and further in view of McMillin et al. (US 20090150022).
Referring to claim 5:
Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, discloses a system for controlling an environment using a predicative model (abstract). Modi, as modified by Rosebraugh, does not disclose wherein the automated response process includes: generating a work order for at least one building device associated with the at least one of the sensor data or the prediction that does not meet the compliance standard, and transmitting the work order to at least one of a remote system or a user device.
However, McMillin teaches a similar system for managing maintenance (abstract). McMillin teaches wherein the automated response process includes: generating a work order for at least one building device associated with the at least one of the sensor data or the prediction that does not meet the compliance standard, and transmitting the work order to at least one of a remote system or a user device (McMillin [0033][0038][0039][0045][0049] and Fig. 4 The fault report generator module 50 receives as input fault data 52...[0033] and The work order generator module 80 generates a work order 100...[0038] and The work order generator module 80 manages the work order UI 108 via work order user interface data 110. In various other embodiments, the work order generator module 80 is an automated system that automatically generates the work order 100 and the parts order 104 based on predefined rule sets...[0039] where the work order is transmitted to the user interface 108 after being generated by the work order generator module 80).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Modi and Rosebraugh, to incorporate work orders as taught by McMillin because this would provide a manner for managing maintenance (McMillin at [0005]), thus aiding the user by reducing errors (McMillin at [0004]).
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fletcher et al. (US 20140095182) – a system for managing clinical procedures scheduling based on environmental thresholds (see abstract and [0040]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights