DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 22-31 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 22, 26 and 29 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/31/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) follow.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2007/0053053 to Moskowitz et al., (hereinafter Moskowitz), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2013/0310987 to Sobek et al., (hereinafter Sobek), in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2012/0086562 to Steinberg (hereinafter Steinberg)
Regarding claim 1, Moskowitz teaches a controller comprising:
at least one interface communicatively coupled (A controller connected in a system, see Figs. 1-4, 8-9, 18-24, P38, P65, Moskowitz) with (i) a network of optically switchable devices disposed in one or more buildings (Controllable windows, see P9, P3, Figs. 1-4, 8-9, 18-24, P38, P65, Moskowitz) and (ii) a plurality of sensors that provide information to the controller about an environmental parameter in the one or more buildings (Sensors and sensor input to system, including environmental parameters and for energy usage, see P38, P42, 46, 134, Figs. 1-4, 8-9, 18-24, P38, P65, P100, P60-61, Moskowitz);
a remote device interface configured to receive communications from at least one remote wireless device (Controller can be accessed by devices remote from it, and wirelessly, see P24, P92, P52, Fig. 7, Fig. 9, P65, p105-106, P50, P9, Moskowitz), by way of a user interface of an application operating on the remote wireless device (By operator, meaning there is a user interface operating, see P19, P47, P22, P11, 111, P42, 97, Moskowitz), the communications including user instructions for changing an optical state of at least one of the plurality of optically switchable devices (Operator can command and set commands for controlling state of windows, see P19, P47, P22, P11, 111, P24, P42, 97, Moskowitz);
and providing an alert through the user interface (Alerts can be provided, see P22, P117, 63, Moskowitz)
While Moskowitz considers energy usage, Moskowitz does not explicitly teach information about power consumption.
However, Sobek from the same or similar field of controlled devices used in dwelling buildings, including optic changing based devices, teaches information about power consumption (Energy consumption can be obtained, and used in a more efficient environmental control see P58, p39, p56-58, p74, 41, 61,45, Sobek).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the building device control as described by Moskowitz and incorporating consideration of information about power consumption, as taught by Sobek.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better use environmental influencing devices in a building in a more efficient and optimized manner by considering information of interest such as energy consumption, as suggested by Sobek (see p56, 58, 39, 41, Sobek).
Moskowitz does not explicitly teach logic configured to adaptively control a temperature of a location in the one or more buildings, the adaptive control comprising: monitoring a response of a temperature in the location to a change in heating or air conditioning; crafting a new rule to anticipatorily change a heating or air conditioning setting based, at least in part, on the monitored response; and providing an alert through the user interface, which alert suggests that the new rule be adopted.
However, Steinberg from the same or similar field of controlled devices used in dwelling buildings, teaches logic configured to adaptively control a temperature of a location in one or more buildings (Adaptive control changes that can be for temperature setpoints of a home building location, see P142, p138, p112-113, p153, p156, 98, 185, p3, p19-20,Steinberg), the adaptive control comprising: monitoring a response of a temperature in the location to a change in heating or air conditioning (Monitoring of a temperature response, such as a temperature setpoint responsive to a manual override that changes an air conditioner or heater from a set scheduled temperature setpoint in response that was already established to a most recent overridden temperature, see P140, P142, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg); crafting a new rule to anticipatorily change a heating or air conditioning setting based, at least in part, on the monitored response (Crafting a new adjusted programming setpoint and/or rule, which is being interpreted as a new rule, as an anticipated change, see P142-143, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg); and providing an alert through the user interface, which alert suggests that the new rule be adopted (A user can be alerted by for example email of a suggested recommendation change, see P143, P142, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg).
.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the building device control as described by the combination including Moskowitz and incorporating new rules based on temperature response monitoring and providing a user with an alert suggestion, as taught by Steinberg.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better adaptively provide recommended changes for devices by analyzing history of captured user events of user operation of devices in a more intuitive manner, and to provide a more optimized operation based on relevant information for ease of programming for a user that anticipates user intentions (see P12-14, P143, P142, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein a controller is a master window controller of a network of window controllers, the network comprising a plurality of intermediate window controllers coupled to the master window controller (A hierarchical window control implementation with a master control point and a first lower level (i.e. intermediate) control points, see p114-115, figs. 22, etc., Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein the network of window controllers comprises a plurality of low-level window controllers coupled to intermediate window controllers (A hierarchical window control implementation with a master control point and a first lower level (i.e. intermediate) control points, and a further (low-level) control points, see p114-115, figs. 22, Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein a low-level window controllers are coupled to optically switchable devices (A hierarchical window control implementation lowest level control points connected to activate window, see p114-115, Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein y managing the optical state further comprises defining and/or modifying rules or properties for automatically controlling tinting of optically switchable windows (Control modifies of automated tint of windows, see P14, 41, 102, 46-50, Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches and wherein rules include schedule-based rules and/or sensor- based rules (Window based control includes time (i.e. schedule) control (rules) and sensor based control (rules), see P42, P47, P38, Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein rules are based at least in part on weather feed data (Weather information, such as temperature and weather conditions, are fed into the system, such as from sensors, see P42, 13, 112 Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein a weather feed data is provided by at least one of the sensors (Sensors feed in weather information such as temperature and other weather conditions, see 13, 112, p42, Moskowitz).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein rules are based at least in part on one or more of: a comparison of a sensor output value against a threshold value; a time of year and/or day; and a location of an optically switchable device (Control based on sensor output, a time, and location, see P93, P42, 38, Moskowitz).
Claims 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moskowitz, in view of Sobek, in further view of Steinberg, and in further view of WIPO Patent Publication No. WO0237332A2 to Baker et al., (hereinafter Baker).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz does not explicitly teach wherein weather feed data is provided by a commercial or government entity (Note: this is an intended use limitation that is not being given patentable weight. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
However, Baker from the same or similar field of environmental systems and controlled devices, including window-based devices, teaches wherein weather feed data is provided by a commercial or government entity (weather data that can be used for control including window-based control, can be fed from government or commercial entities, see Pg. 9 L6-22; Pg. 28 L20 to Pg.25 L10, Baker).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the building device control as described by the combination including Moskowitz and incorporating a feed from a specified entity, as taught by Baker.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide reliable information from an entity known to provide such information (see Pg. 9 L6-22; Pg. 28 L20 to Pg.25 L10, Baker).
Claims 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moskowitz, in view of Sobek, in further view of Steinberg, and in further view of US Patent No. 8,509,400 to Liu et al., (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Moskowitz, Sobek, and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz does not explicitly teach wherein rules are based at least in part on a history of user control of a control application;
However, Liu from the same or similar field of controlled devices used in dwelling buildings, including window-based devices teaches wherein rules are based at least in part on a history of user control of a control application (An operation (i.e. new rule) for a device of a plurality of devices is determined (inferred) based on a stored events (i.e. history of a user initiated instruction events), see C3 L11-31; C1 L25-35, Liu).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the building device control as described by the combination that includes Moskowitz and incorporating rules based on user history, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better adaptively provide suggested configurations for devices by analyzing history of captured user events of user operation of devices in a more intuitive manner, as suggested by Liu (see C3 L11-31; C1 L25-35; C1-C2, Liu).
Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moskowitz, in view of Steinberg.
Regarding claim 22, Moskowitz teaches a method for managing a plurality of optically switchable devices (Controlling state of windows is through interfaces to window controllers that manage controlling the windows, see Figs. 1-4, 8-9, P19, P47, P22, P11, 111, P24, P42, 97, Moskowitz), the method comprising:
receiving communications from at least one remote wireless device (Controller can be accessed by devices remote from it, and wirelessly, meaning communications are received, see P24, P92, P52, Fig. 7, Fig. 9, P65, p105-106, P50, P9, Moskowitz), the communications including user instructions for changing an optical state of at least one of the plurality of optically switchable devices (Operator can command and set commands for controlling state of windows, see P19, P47, P22, P11, 111, P24, P42, 97, Moskowitz);
Moskowitz does not explicitly teach adaptively controlling a temperature of a location in a building, the adaptive controlling comprising: monitoring a response of a temperature in the location to a change in heating or air conditioning; crafting a new rule to anticipatorily change a heating or air conditioning setting based, at least in part, on the monitored response; and providing an alert, the alert suggesting that the new rule be adopted.
However, Steinberg from the same or similar field of controlled devices used in dwelling buildings, teaches adaptively controlling a temperature of a location in a building, (Adaptive control changes that can be for temperature setpoints of a home building location, see P142, p138, p112-113, p153, p156, 98, 185, p3, p19-20,Steinberg), the adaptive controlling comprising: monitoring a response of a temperature in the location to a change in heating or air conditioning (Monitoring of a temperature response, such as a temperature setpoint responsive to a manual override that changes an air conditioner or heater from a set scheduled temperature setpoint in response that was already established to a most recent overridden temperature, see P140, P142, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg); crafting a new rule to anticipatorily change a heating or air conditioning setting based, at least in part, on the monitored response (Crafting a new adjusted programming setpoint and/or rule, which is being interpreted as a new rule, as an anticipated change, see P142-143, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg); and providing an alert, the alert suggesting that the new rule be adopted (A user can be alerted by for example email of a suggested recommendation change, see P143, P142, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg).
.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the building device control as described by Moskowitz and incorporating new rules based on temperature response monitoring and providing a user with an alert suggestion, as taught by Steinberg.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better adaptively provide recommended changes for devices by analyzing history of captured user events of user operation of devices in a more intuitive manner, and to provide a more optimized operation based on relevant information for ease of programming for a user that anticipates user intentions (see P12-14, P143, P142, P140, p93, Fig. 2, p138, Steinberg).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Moskowitz and Steinberg teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Moskowitz further teaches wherein a method runs on a master window controller of a network of window controllers, the network comprising a plurality of intermediate window controllers coupled to the master window controller (A hierarchical window control implementation with a master control point running control, and a first lower level (i.e. intermediate) control points, see p114-115, figs. 22, etc., Moskowitz).
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 31 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
Claims 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moskowitz, in view of Steinberg, and in further view of Baker.
Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayasi, US Patent Publication No. 2012/0323390 teaches an energy supply and demand control system that includes a learning function that monitors and records sensor information and adaptively controls operation of a device such as air conditioner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117