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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea below. See below for further explanation.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Determining metrics for a plurality of fabrics to associate with the window treatment; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a consider various fabrics for blinds, curtains or other window treatments and rates the properties of it as it relates to the user desires. Or the user can select a thicker fabric for insulation purposes and rating the thickness of fabric. This can be accomplished mentally by a user with aid of pen and paper.)
Ranking the plurality of fabrics by predicted performance based on the location of the window and the glass characteristics of the window, the predicted performance comprising one or more metrics that relate to the natural light impinging on the fabric; (This amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user predicts how the different fabrics will perform based the location of the window, the glass characteristics and desire amount of natural light. For example, based on a window facing the east and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus to stay sleep the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. This can be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper.)
generating at least two fabric recommendations for the window treatment; and (This amount to a mental process of comparing the available fabrics and choosing or making a recommendation of two that fit the users needs. For example, a user knows they want blackout curtains, which has a low openness factor, thus the user would only select fabrics that matches that requirement.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
receiving, by a computer from a network device, input about a window in a building for receiving a window treatment, wherein the input comprises information regarding a location of the window and glass characteristics of the window; (The above limitation amount to data gathering and transmitting data, as such it amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data, see MPEP 2106.05(g). It also cites the use of a computer and network device which both amount to using generic computer components to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device recommendations (The above limitation amount to using a generic computer and components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of
receiving, by a computer from a network device, input about a window in a building for receiving a window treatment, wherein the input comprises information regarding a location of the window and glass characteristics of the window; (This limitation amounts to transmitting data and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device a recommendation for window treatment. (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, for each of the at least two fabric recommendations, at least one of a daylight autonomy value, a glare reduction value, or a view value that would be achieved by using each fabric. (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the computer, that each of the at least two fabric recommendations two fabric recommendations meet an input use of an interior space adjacent to the window. (This is mental step of user considering matching the openness factor for a fabric to a room requirement. For example, a room that does not require a lot of sunlight will need fabric with low openness, such and blackout curtains. It is the act of person finding or matching curtains that have the blackout feature. It also accounts for the interior space adjacent to the window, which is the room itself.)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the window treatment is a motorized window treatment. (This amounts to linking the abstract idea to a technological field, see MPEP 2106.05(h).)
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining at least one of: a solar heat gain value based on a solar reflectance of the glass and a solar reflectance for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations; or a visible light transmittance of the glass and a visible light transmittance for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendation; estimating, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations, an energy savings based on transmission of heat or light through the fabric; and generating, by the computer, a display for displaying on the network device, the energy savings. (This a mental step of observation, evaluation, and judgement. It amounts to a user considering how much light comes thru a window (wherein clear class let in full light and frosted glass lets in less light), considering if they want a lot of light or less light and thus choosing a fabric openness fabric that matches their desire, and determining how much money can be saved from using a particular fabric. For example, a user may determine by using a brighter color or sheer type fabric that allows more light will lead to energy savings versus a darker color that does not allow light in or a tighter weave fabric thus not allow the sunlight thru to heat the room as well. The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating, by the computer, an illumination level at an interior space for a defined distance from the window; and generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the illumination levels for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (This a mental step of user determining illumination level, amount of light, in a room and determining the illumination level of each fabric is used. The displaying step amounts to using a generic computer to apply the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a color of a surface in the space. (The amounts to a mental process of user determining illumination levels of room based on the color of the room. For example, a user would give less illumination levels to darker rooms when compared to lighter rooms.)
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a size of the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determine illumination level of a room based on the size of the window, wherein a user would give larger illumination values to rooms with large windows compared to rooms with smaller windows.)
10. The method of claim 7, wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on at least one of a tint or visible transmittances of a glass in the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determine illumination level of a room based on the tint of a window, wherein a user would give a window with no tint larger illumination values when compared to windows with tint.)
11. The method of claim 7, wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a window-to-wall ratio of the building. (This is a mental process of a user determining an illumination level of based on window to wall ratio. For example, a user will give a higher illumination level to a building wherein the walls up made up of glass or windows, when compared to a building that has a single small window per wall.)
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating, by a computer, a daylight glare probability value based on the location of the window and the glass characteristics of the window; and generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the daylight glare probability values for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (This a mental step of observation, judgement and evaluation wherein a user determining glare probability from using a fabric in window treatment, wherein the location of the window and window characteristics are considered. For example, a user determines that light colored sheer fabric lets in a lot of light and thus has high glare probability when compared to a dark color cotton fabric which would have a lower glare probability. The user will also take into account the window location and characteristics. For example, a clear window facing the south with sheer fabric will have a higher glass probability then then a window facing south with frosted glass and blackout curtains. The displaying step using a generic computer and components to apply the abstract idea.)
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the daylight glare probability values are based on an orientation of the window at the location of the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determining a glare probability value based on a window location and orientation. For example, a user would give a window facing the south a high glare probability value as south facing windows get the most direct sunlight throughout the day.)
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the daylight glare probability values are based on an input of a use for an interior space adjacent to the window. (This amount a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation wherein a user determines daylight glare probability based what the room will be used for.)
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a method, therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining whether the at least two fabric recommendations for the window treatment meet the new use of the interior space, (This amounts to a mental step of a user determining whether the openness factor of some fabric meets the needs of the interior space, this is a mental of judgement)
wherein, if the at least two fabric recommendations of the window treatment do not meet the new use of the interior space, the method further comprise: ranking the plurality of fabrics by predict performance based on the location of the window, the glass characteristics of the window, and the new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; and Ranking the plurality of fabrics by predicted performance based on the location of the window and the glass characteristics of the window, the predicted performance comprising one or more metrics that relate to the natural light impinging on the fabric; (This amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user predicts how the different fabrics will perform based the location of the window, the glass characteristics and what the space or room will be used for. For example, based on a window facing the south and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep (for a bedroom) the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight (for an office or living room) they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. The use would rank the fabrics based on there need and predicted performance. This can be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
receiving, by the computer from the network device, input comprising a use of an interior space adjacent to the window; receiving, by a computer from a network device, input comprising a new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; (The above limitation amount to data gathering and transmitting data, as such it amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data, see MPEP 2106.05(g). It also cites the use of a computer and network device which both amount to using generic computer components to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device recommendations for window treatment. (The above limitation amounts to using a generic computer and components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of
receiving, by the computer from the network device, input comprising a use of an interior space adjacent to the window; receiving, by a computer from a network device, input comprising a new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; (This limitation amounts to transmitting data and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device a recommendation for window treatment. (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the computer from the network device, a selection of a fabric from among the at least two fabric recommendations. (This limitation amounts to transmitting data, which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The also does not amount to significantly more integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the limitation amounts to transmitting data and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.))
In regards to claim 17, it is the non-transitory embodiment of claim with similar limitations and thus rejected using the reasoning found in claim 1. The difference between claim 17 and claim 1 is claim 17 includes the use of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processors, both of which do not amount to significantly more integrate the abstract idea into practical application as they are using generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the stored instructions further cause the one or more processors to: estimate, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations, at least one of a daylight autonomy value, a glare reduction value, or a view value that would be achieved by using each fabric; and generate a display for displaying on the network device, the at least one daylight autonomy values, glare reduction values, or view values. (This amounts to mental step of determining a glare value, view value or daylight autonomy value of fabric. The displaying steps amounts to the user a computer and network device amount to using a generic hardware to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).) The use of processor also amounts to using generic computer hardware to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
In regards to claim 19, it is the non-transitory embodiment of claim with similar limitations and thus rejected using the reasoning found in claim 6. The difference between claim 19 and claim 6 is claim 19 includes the use of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processors, both of which do not amount to significantly more integrate the abstract idea into practical application as they are using generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the stored instructions further cause the one or more processors to: estimate, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations, an illumination level at an interior space for a defined distance from the window; and generate a display for displaying on the network device, the illumination levels. (This a mental step of user determining illumination level, amount of light, in a room. The displaying step and processor amounts to using generic computer components for executing the abstract idea.)
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the predicted performance is one or more of an openness factor, wherein the openness factor is a ratio of open space to fabric material in a fabric, a visible light transmittance, or a solar heat gain. (This is a mental process of a user determining an openness factor or how much light a fabric treatment for window should allow in based on the window location and glass. For example, based on a window facing the east and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. This can be accomplished mentally by a user.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03 November 205 have been considered and due to amendments to the claims the prior rejection has been withdrawn and new rejection in light of the claim amendments has been provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127