Johnson Controls Technology Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 14, 2021

2020003482 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021)

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. 15/279,336 09/28/2016 Carlos Felipe Alcala Perez 16BE083-US (117277-0176) 6255 26371 7590 09/14/2021 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2021 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CARLOS FELIPE ALCALA PEREZ ___________ Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–13 and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 9. Claims 1, 11 and 19 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 20, 2019), the Reply Brief (filed April 7, 2020), the Final Action (mailed May 3, 2019) and the Answer (mailed February 7, 2020), for the respective details. 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Johnson Controls Technology Company, a subsidiary of Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 2 are independent. Claims 4, 14 and 20 are cancelled. See Appeal Brief 18 and 21–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant: The present disclosure relates generally to building management systems. The present disclosure relates more particularly to a building management system which uses principal component analysis (PCA) to model various operating states for connected equipment. A building management system (BMS) is, in general, a system of devices configured to control, monitor, and manage equipment in or around a building or building area. A BMS can include, for example, a HVAC system, a security system, a lighting system, a fire alerting system, any other system that is capable of managing building functions or devices, or any combination thereof. Specification ¶ 1. The claimed subject matter relates to building models used in computerized analysis and/or control for buildings (e.g., models 700, 752, 800, 900, 1000; FIGS. 7A-10B). For example, such models can be used for performing predictive diagnostics for connected equipment in a building (e.g., “The predictive diagnostics system uses principal component analysis (PCA) models to represent a plurality of distinct operating states for connected equipment controlled by the building controller”, paragraph [0058]). The invention is separately defined in three independent claims, Claim 1, Claim 11, and Claim 19. Appeal Brief 2. Johnson Controls International plc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2. Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 3 Figure 1 shows a building equipped with a HVAC system is reproduced below: The BMS that serves building 10 includes an HVAC system 100. HVAC system 100 can include a plurality of HVAC devices (e.g., heaters, chillers, air handling units, pumps, fans, thermal energy storage, etc.) configured to provide heating, cooling, ventilation, or other services for building 10. For example, HVAC system 100 is shown to include a waterside system 120 and an airside system 130. Waterside system 120 may provide a heated or chilled fluid to an air handling unit of airside system 130. Airside system 130 may use the heated or chilled fluid to heat or cool an airflow provided to building 10. Specification ¶ 65. Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 4 Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A building management system comprising: connected equipment configured to measure a plurality of monitored variables and operable to affect a variable state or condition within a building by interacting with a physical environment of the building; and a predictive diagnostics system comprising: a communications interface configured to receive samples of the monitored variables from the connected equipment; a principal component analysis (PCA) modeler configured to automatically assign each of the samples of the monitored variables to one of a plurality of operating states of the connected equipment and to construct a PCA model for each operating state using the samples assigned to the operating state, the PCA modeler configured to determine whether the connected equipment is switching between the operating states based on a variance of the samples; a fault predictor configured to generate a fault prediction in response to determining that the samples are moving toward a known faulty state; and 3 Appellant does not argue the claims individually. Appeal Brief 10. (“Accordingly, the general observation of difference between samples is beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘a variance of the samples’ as recited in Claims 1, 11, and 19.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 5 a controller configured to adjust an operation of the connected equipment based on the fault prediction by providing control signals to the connected equipment, the control signals causing the connected equipment to affect the variable state or condition within the building by interacting with the physical environment of the building. References Name4 Reference Date Hsiung US 2003/0109951 A1 June 12, 2003 Trainor US 2017/0091870 A1 March 30, 2017 Ahmed US 2018/0046149 A1 February 15, 2018 Rejection on Appeal5 Claims 1, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor, Ahmed and Hsiung. Final Action 14–28. ANALYSIS Appellant contends, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘a variance of the samples’ is a statistical metric that measures an amount of variation of the samples from their average value.” Appeal Brief 11 (citing Specification ¶¶ 174, 325, 331). Appellant further contends: [T]he term “variance” is widely used in statistics to refer to a statistical metric that measures an amount of variation of a set of numbers from their average value (e.g., “variance [STAT] The 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 5 The Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections of claims 1–3, 5–13 and 15–19, as well as, the provisional double patenting rejection of claim 1. See Answer 3. Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 6 square of the standard Deviation”, Parker, Sybil (2003) Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pg. 2015 “standard deviation [STAT] The positive square root of the expected value of the square of the difference between a random variable and its mean” Id, pg. 2045). Appeal Brief 12. Appellant argues, “The term ‘variance’ has a meaning that is more specific than a mere general observation that samples are different from one another” and therefore “Such a broad meaning of ‘variance’ is inconsistent with both the use of the term ‘variance’ throughout the application and the meaning that would be understood by one skilled in the art.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellant concludes that, “The analysis under§ 103 therefore requires considering the claims with the term ‘a variance of the samples’ interpreted as a quantitative statistical metric rather than a mere fact of differences between samples.” Appeal Brief 12. The Examiner finds that Trainor discloses, a “modeler configured to determine whether the connected equipment is switching between the operating states based on a variance of the samples (pg. 6, par. [0099]- [0101] and pg. 7, par. [0121]; i.e. state transitions of a drift state).” Final Action 16. Appellant contends, “The cited paragraphs of Trainor describe the general idea of classifying states and identifying state transitions based on sensor data” and therefore “the cited paragraphs of Trainor merely describe that ‘the state prediction system 50 uses this information to construct a mathematical model that includes a state representation, state transitions and state triggers.’” Appeal Brief 12–13 (citing Trainor ¶ 121). Appellant argues that, “Trainor does not describe the mathematics of that model, nor does Trainor mention anything about using a statistical metric that measures an amount of variation of the samples from their Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 7 average value” and consequently “Trainor does not disclose using ‘a variance of the samples’ within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant concludes, “Therefore, Trainor does not teach, suggest, or disclose ‘determining whether the connected equipment is switching between the operating states based on a variance of the samples’ as in Claim 11 or similar features of Claims 1 and 19.” Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error. Trainor discloses, “Over a period of time, the sensor based state prediction system 50 collects information about the premises and the sensor based state prediction system 50 uses this information to construct a mathematical model that includes a state representation, state transitions and state triggers.” Trainor ¶121; see Final Action 16. We agree with Appellant that employing basic well-known statistical metrics (e.g. variances) and Trainor’ mathematical models may not be exactly the same. See Appeal Brief 12; Final Action 16. Nonetheless, we discern no meaningful difference between the basic well-known statistical metrics model employed by the claimed invention and the mathematical model disclosed by Trainor in regard to providing information to the premises management system. We emphasize that “‘the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added). Finally, Appellant has not demonstrated that combining Trainor’s mathematical models with Ahmed’s and Hsiung’s systems would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” and we Appeal 2020-003482 Application 15/279,336 8 find the proposed modification would have been well within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); see Final Action 17–19; Appeal Brief 14– 15). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 11 and 19 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 19 103 Trainor, Ahmed, Hsiung 1, 11, 19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED