Johnson Controls Technology Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2022000755 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/379,666 04/09/2019 Siddharth Goyal 19-0101-US3 (116048-0709) 3359 146598 7590 03/30/2022 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER WONG, WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocketing@foley.com uspatents@jci.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SIDDHARTH GOYAL ___________________ Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 19-24 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 17, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed November 16, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 17, 2021 (“Ans.”); the Final Action mailed November 30, 2020 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed November 4, 2020 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Johnson Controls Technology Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION The claims relate to a building system for implementing user-defined logic. See Abstr. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A building interface system for generating a custom user interface, the building interface system comprising one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon, the instructions causing one or more processors to: receive user input defining one or more graphical requirements from a user device; retrieve a semantic building system model based on the one or more graphical requirements, wherein the semantic building system model comprises semantic information describing a building system; retrieve one or more graphic templates based on the semantic building system model and the one or more graphical requirements, the one or more graphic templates providing a generic description of one or more user interface elements; generate the custom user interface based on the one or more graphic templates and the semantic building system model; and cause the user device to display the custom user interface. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 3 Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Mackay US 2011/0088000 A1 Apr. 14, 2011 Lawson US 2013/0212129 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Hua US 2015/0212714 A1 July 30, 2015 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lawson. Final Act. 5-10. 2. Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lawson and Hua. Final Act. 11-14. 3. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lawson and Mackay. Final Act. 14-15. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 4 the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 3- 11. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the claims in four groups: Group AI- Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 16, and 18; Group AII - Claim 12; Group BI - Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20; Group BII - Claims 2, 4, 5, and 17; and Group C - Claims 13-15. See Appeal Br. 6. CLAIMS 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 16, AND 18: ANTICIPATION BY LAWSON. Group AI: Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 16, and 18. Appellant argues the Group I claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12 (“Independent claim 16 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1, and is allowable over Lawson for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 3, 6-8, 11, and 18 depend variously from independent claims 1 and 16, and are allowable over Lawson for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 16.”). Therefore, we decide the appeal of these § 102 rejections on the basis of representative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 recites, inter alia: “the instructions causing one or more processors to . . . retrieve a semantic building system model based on the one Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 5 or more graphical requirements.” The Examiner finds this limitation is disclosed by Lawson. Final Act. 6 (quoting Lawson ¶ 58) (“keyword-based querying of the template libraries 510 and/or a browsable interface that allows the user to navigate the library hierarchy”). Appellant contends whereas, the claims recite a method whereby one or more processors retrieve a semantic building system model, Lawson discloses a browsable interface that allows the user to navigate the library hierarchy. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues: In Lawson, a user manually retrieves the template by themselves, e.g., based on user input. In contrast, in claim 1, the building interface system retrieves “one or more graphic templates based on the semantic building system model.” Id. (underlining omitted). The Examiner finds: “[h]owever, the claim language does not preclude the use of user input to ‘manually’ retrieve the template.” Ans. 4. Appellant concedes: “the claim does not preclude at least some ‘manual’ retrieval of the template” (Reply Br. 3), but contends: “the claim still requires retrieving ‘one or more graphic templates based on the semantic building system model.’” Id. (underlining omitted). Appellant argues, “[i]n Lawson, ‘[t]he list of cloud templates can be gradually narrowed as the user navigates through lower tiers of the hierarchy in this manner until the user selects a cloud template from the list or until a lowest tier of the hierarchy is reached.’” Id. (quoting Lawson ¶ 73). Appellant argues: “[R]etrieving/navigating through relevant portions/nodes of a ‘library hierarchy’ until, for example, a particular tier of the hierarchy with a desired template is reached” is making a Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 6 selection entirely based on user navigation, not based on a semantic building system model. Id. (quoting Ans. 5). Where Appellant concedes the claims permit user navigation (Reply Br. 3), we are not persuaded such navigation is not based on the user’s understanding of the building model. In view of the forgoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 16, and 18. Group AII: Claim 12. Appellant argues, inter alia, that dependent Claim 12 is allowable for the reasons advanced in favor of Claim 1. In view of the forgoing, we sustain the rejection of Claim 12. CLAIMS 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LAWSON AND HUA. Appellant contends Hua’s dashboard is a tool to assist a user’s navigation and re-alleges Appellant’s foregoing arguments against user navigation. Appeal Br. 15. In view of the forgoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 20. Claims 13-15: Obviousness over Lawson and Mackay. Claims 13-15 depend from Claim 1. Appellant contends Mackay fails to cure the deficiencies of Lawson as discussed above in connection with Claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. In view of the forgoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 13-15. Appeal 2022-000755 Application 16/379,666 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 16, 18 102(a)(1) Lawson 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 16, 18 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20 103 Lawson, Hua 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20 13-15 103 Lawson, Mackay 13-15 Overall Outcome 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED