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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims on 04/30/2025. Amendments to the claims overcome the claim objection, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The processing unit in claim is a generic placeholder which is given a function without having any structure in the claim. The processing unit is understood as being a CPU in the instant specification (0105). The instant specification provides an algorithm for the CPU (figure 9).
For the purpose of examination, the processing unit will correspond to any electrical device.
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 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-12, 16, 19, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan).
Regarding claim 1, Snyker teaches A window controller system for controlling multiple optically switchable devices, the window controller system comprising:
a printed circuit board [comprising a first plurality of footprints] to which a first plurality of components is mounted (0055 “connectivity harness 110 may further have a flex printed circuit 120 draped around an edge of the glass lite of the IGU 50 and angled to lie along the glass lite”) [and a second plurality of footprints, wherein a subset of the second plurality of footprints is populated] by a second plurality of components (0014), and wherein the first plurality of components comprises:
a plurality of insulated glass unit (IGU) controllers, each configured to control an IGU of a corresponding plurality of IGUs operatively coupled to the window controller system (0017 “a system for providing an electrical interface between components outside of a building and components inside of a building in which a portion of the building is enclosed by at least one insulated glass unit having first and second glass substrates and an electrochromic device attached between the glass substrates”, 0079 “the controller module 910 may be affixed to an inner glass lite 912 of the IGU 950 and the panel module 911 may be similarly affixed to an outer glass lite 913 at a position nearest to the controller module 910 to reduce the spacing between the modules”, 0056, fig. 2a),
and a processing unit configured to control each of the plurality of IGU controllers (0056 0076)
and wherein the second plurality of components is configured to utilize a cable type and/or a protocol type used to provide power and data signals to the printed circuit board (0014 “system may include first and second conduits in which the first conduit may be an electrical conductor applied to the first plate, and the second conduit may be an electrical conductor applied to the second plate. The second conduit may be in communication with the first conduit across the space.”)
Snyker does not explicitly teach comprising a first plurality of footprints, and a second plurality of footprints, wherein a subset of the second plurality of footprints is populated.
Soto teaches comprising a first plurality of footprints (fig. 16, 0070)
and a second plurality of footprints, wherein a subset of the second plurality of footprints is populated (fig. 16, 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker with the teachings of Soto since Soto teaches a applying a known technique of footpads on a PCB to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of mounting components to a PCB (MPEP 2141).
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to characterize leakage current from one or more IGUs of the corresponding plurality of IGUs.
Cogan teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to characterize leakage current from one or more IGUs of the corresponding plurality of IGUs (7:50-55 “illustrate the superior properties of a-SiOC:H as a protective overlayer for electrochromic coatings, the rate of H.sub.2 O and ion transport through the films was determined using leakage current measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto with the teachings of Cogan since Cogan teaches a means for protecting electrochromic devices (3:5-10).
Regarding claim 2. The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the protocol type comprises at least one of: a home networking protocol, or a power over ethernet (PoE) protocol (0037).
Regarding claim 3. The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 2.
Soto teaches wherein the home networking protocol is a Gigabit Home Networking protocol (0037).
Regarding claim 4. The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the cable type comprises at least one of: a coaxial cable, a powerline cable, or a twisted conductor pair cable (0037).
Regarding claim 5. The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the protocol type comprises Gigabit Home Networking (“G.hn”), and wherein the second plurality of components comprise one of: (i) a first subset of components configured to utilize a G.hn coaxial input, or (ii) a second subset of components configured to utilize a G.hn powerline input (0037).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the protocol type comprises Gigabit Home Networking (“G.hn”), and wherein the second plurality of components comprise a third subset of components to be utilized with either a G.hn coaxial input or a G.hn powerline input (0037).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the first plurality of components further comprises a memory device configured to store an indication of the cable type and/or the protocol type used to provide the power and the data signals (0030).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 1.
Soto teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to communicate with a computing device (0030).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 18.
Snyker teaches wherein the computing device is one of: a cloud computing device; or is housed in a control panel installed in a facility in which the window controller system is installed (0055).
Regarding claim 33, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 1.
Snyker teaches wherein the first plurality of components further comprises at least one component configured to provide one or more wireless communications channels (0080).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Bilger et al (US PAT. 9584180, herein Bilger).
Regarding claim 6. The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 5.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the first subset of components configured to utilize the G.hn coaxial input comprise a splitter configured to operatively couple to a trunk line, and a coaxial coupling circuit configured to provide power from the trunk line to an analog front end component.
Bilger teaches wherein the first subset of components configured to utilize the G.hn coaxial input comprise a splitter configured to operatively couple to a trunk line, and a coaxial coupling circuit configured to provide power from the trunk line to an analog front end component (1:15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan with teachings of Bilger since Bilger teaches that computer networking system generally have data carried on a conductor that can also carry AC power (1:15-20).
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 5.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the second subset of components configured to utilize the G.hn powerline input comprise a powerline coupling circuit configured to operatively couple to an AC power outlet, and an analog front end component.
Bilger teaches wherein the second subset of components configured to utilize the G.hn powerline input comprise a powerline coupling circuit configured to operatively couple to an AC power outlet, and an analog front end component (1:15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan with teachings of Bilger since Bilger teaches that computer networking system generally have data carried on a conductor that can also carry AC power (1:15-20).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Bilger et al (US PAT. 9584180, herein Bilger) in further view of Tarng (US PUB. 20100188057).
Regarding claim 10, The cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 8.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the second set of components further comprise an A-to-D converter (ADC) configured to convert AC signals from the AC power outlet to DC signal
Tarng teaches wherein the second set of components further comprise an A-to-D converter (ADC) configured to convert AC signals from the AC power outlet to DC signal (0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan and teachings of Bilger with the teachings of Tarng since Tarng teaches a means for bit improvements for ADC in electrochromic window environment (0187).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Dubois et al (US PUB. 20180059520, herein Dubois).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches the window controller system of claim 16.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the computing device is a cloud device remote from a premises on which the window controller system is installed.
Dubois teaches wherein the computing device is a cloud device remote from a premises on which the window controller system is installed (0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan with the teachings of Dubois since Dubois teaches a means for secure communications even in the case of loss of connectivity (0040).
Claim(s) 18, 23, 24, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Tarng (US PUB. 20100188057).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 16.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to: detect an anomalous event based on the characterized leakage current; and responsive to detecting the anomalous event, cause data associated with the characterized leakage current to be transmitted to the computing device.
Tarng teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: detect an anomalous event based on the characterized leakage current; and responsive to detecting the anomalous event, cause data associated with the characterized leakage current to be transmitted to the computing device (0129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan with the teachings of Tarng since Tarng teaches a means for power efficiency (0007).
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art teach The window controller system of claim 1.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the processing unit is configured to: receive an override to a tint command for at least one IGU of the plurality of IGUs; and cause the at least one IGU to transition to a tint state based on the received override.
Tarng teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to: receive an override to a tint command for at least one IGU of the plurality of IGUs; and cause the at least one IGU to transition to a tint state based on the received override (0131 “Phase 1 is the start or continue switching of coloring phase. Phase 2 is the hold of the color. Phase 3 is the start of bleach. Phase 4 is the start or continue switching of bleaching phase. Phase 5 is the hold of the bleach”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto and Cogan with the teachings of Tarng since Tarng teaches a means for power efficiency (0007).
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 23.
Soto teaches wherein the override is received via at least one of :an application executing on a mobile device; or a local network to which the processing unit is communicatively coupled (0038).
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 1.
Tarng teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to cause each IGU controller to apply a drive voltage having a ramp rate to the corresponding IGU, wherein a first ramp rate associated with a first IGU of the plurality of IGUs is different than a second ramp rate associated with a second IGU of the plurality of IGUs (0061 “FIG. 2A, the switching frequency is low that the slopes of the rising edges and falling edges can be slow. As shown in FIG. 2B, the switching frequency is high that the slopes of the rising edges and falling edges are fast”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto with the teachings of Tarng since Tarng teaches a means for power efficiency (0007).
Regarding claim 29, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 28.
Tarng teaches wherein the drive voltage applied to the first IGU is at a time point that is offset from application of the drive voltage to the second IGU (0061).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Tarng (US PUB. 20100188057) in further view of Chen (US PUB. 20110194040, herein Chen).
Regarding claim 26, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 23.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the override is based on information obtained by a sky sensor device configured to measure solar radiation external to a facility in which the window controller system is installed.
Chen teaches wherein the override is based on information obtained by a sky sensor device configured to measure solar radiation external to a facility in which the window controller system is installed (0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker, the teachings of Soto, Cogan and Tarng with the teachings of Chen since Chen teaches a means for an auto light shading system (0005-0006).
Claim(s) 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Imes et al (US PUB. 20160238272, herein Imes).
Regarding claim 34, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 33.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the one or more wireless communications channels utilize at least one of a Wi-Fi communication protocol or a BLUETOOTH communication protocol.
Imes teaches wherein the one or more wireless communications channels utilize at least one of a Wi-Fi communication protocol or a BLUETOOTH communication protocol (0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the obvious the teachings of Snyker, Soto and Cogan with the teachings of Heller since Heller teaches a means for communication infrastructure for utility companies to gather data for utility demand response appropriately (0004).
Regarding claim 35, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 34.
Imes teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to communicate using the Wi-Fi communication protocol with a cloud device (claim 26 “wherein the communication module is configured to connect to a WIFI network at a site to receive firmware updates from a remote cloud-based server using the WIFI network.”)
Regarding claim 36, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 35.
Imes teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to receive one or more updates from the cloud device using the Wi-Fi communication protocol (0086).
Regarding claim 37, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 34.
Imes teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to participate in a mesh network with at least one other processing unit associated with at least one other window controller system (0044).
Claim(s) 39 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Wijaya (US PUB. 20150288157) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan).
Regarding claim 39, Snyker teaches A window controller system for controlling multiple optically switchable devices, the window controller system comprising:
and a first printed circuit board comprising a plurality of components, the plurality of components (0055 “connectivity harness 110 may further have a flex printed circuit 120 draped around an edge of the glass lite of the IGU 50 and angled to lie along the glass lite”) comprising:
a plurality of insulated glass unit (IGU) controllers, each configured to control an IGU of a corresponding plurality of IGUs operatively coupled to the window controller system (0017 “a system for providing an electrical interface between components outside of a building and components inside of a building in which a portion of the building is enclosed by at least one insulated glass unit having first and second glass substrates and an electrochromic device attached between the glass substrates”, 0079 “the controller module 910 may be affixed to an inner glass lite 912 of the IGU 950 and the panel module 911 may be similarly affixed to an outer glass lite 913 at a position nearest to the controller module 910 to reduce the spacing between the modules”, 0056, fig. 2a);
and a processing unit configured to control each of the plurality of IGU controllers (0056 0076).
Snyker does not teach an enclosure, wherein the enclosure comprises a 3-gang or a 4-gang outlet box and a faceplate and to characterize leakage current from one or more IGUs of the corresponding plurality of IGUs.
Wijaya teaches an enclosure, wherein the enclosure comprises a 3-gang or a 4-gang outlet box and a faceplate (0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker with the teachings of Wijaya since Wijaya teaches a means for providing a protective housing for an electrical device (0002).
The cited prior art do not teach and to characterize leakage current from one or more IGUs of the corresponding plurality of IGUs.
Cogan teaches and to characterize leakage current from one or more IGUs of the corresponding plurality of IGUs (7:50-55 “illustrate the superior properties of a-SiOC:H as a protective overlayer for electrochromic coatings, the rate of H.sub.2 O and ion transport through the films was determined using leakage current measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Soto with the teachings of Cogan since Cogan teaches a means for protecting electrochromic devices (3:5-10).
Regarding claim 42, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 39.
Wijaya teaches wherein at least one edge of the face plate is angled (0008).
Claim(s) 40 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Wijaya (US PUB. 20150288157) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Morris et al (US PAT. 6104602, herein Morris).
Regarding claim 40, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 39.
The cited prior art does not teach further comprising a heat sink disposed in the enclosure.
Morris teaches further comprising a heat sink disposed in the enclosure (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker, Wijaya and Cogan with the teachings of Morris since Morris teaches a means for “allow additional electrical equipment to be contained within the enclosure without requiring a larger geometry or forced air cooling by means of circulatory fan” (3:5-10).
Regarding claim 43, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 39.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the face plate comprises a plurality of air vents.
Morris teaches wherein the face plate comprises a plurality of air vents (2:5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker, Wijaya and Cogan with the teachings of Morris since Morris teaches a means for “allow additional electrical equipment to be contained within the enclosure without requiring a larger geometry or forced air cooling by means of circulatory fan” (3:5-10).
Claim(s) 46, 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Wijaya (US PUB. 20150288157) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan) in further view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto).
Regarding claim 46, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 39.
The prior art fails to teach further comprising a second printed circuit board configured for providing power and/or data via a powerline system.
Soto teaches further comprising a second printed circuit board configured for providing power and/or data via a powerline system (0037, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker, Wijaya and Cogan with the teachings of Soto since Soto teaches a means for enabling cost savings through its communication boards (0008).
Regarding claim 48, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 46.
Soto teaches wherein the second printed circuit board is disposed above the printed circuit board and closer to the face plate than the printed circuit board (fig. 15 and 17, 0070).
Regarding claim 49, the cited prior art teaches The window controller system of claim 48.
Soto teaches wherein the printed circuit board comprises a notch configured to pass through a powerline cable through the notch to the second printed circuit board (0071).
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarng (US PUB. 20100188057, herein Tarng) in view of Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan).
Regarding claim 50, Tarng teaches A method for controlling tinting of multiple optically switchable devices, the method comprising:
(a) applying, via a window controller, a drive voltage to [two or more] optically switchable devices in connection with a tint transition from a first tint state to a second tint state, wherein applying the drive voltage to the [two or more] optically switchable device comprises providing a voltage from a power supply common [to the two or more] optically switchable devices (0037 fig. 24, 0135 fig. 35b);
(b) monitoring, for each of the two or more optically switchable devices, parameters indicative of a state of the tint transition (0137);
(c) repeating (a) and (b) until it is determined that one or more optically switchable devices have completed the tint transition to the second tint state (fig. 35a-c);
(d) in response to determining at (c) that the one or more optically switchable devices have completed the tint transition to the second state, applying hold voltages to the one or more optically switchable devices while concurrently continuing to apply the drive voltage to a remaining one or more optically switchable devices of the two or more optically switchable devices that have not completed the tint transition (fig. 35a-c);
(e) repeating (b) - (d) until the two or more optically switchable devices have completed the tint transition (fig. 35a-c).
Tarng does not teach two or more optically switchable devices and (f) characterizing leakage current from one or more of the optically switchable devices.
Snyker teaches two or more optically switchable devices (0017 “a system for providing an electrical interface between components outside of a building and components inside of a building in which a portion of the building is enclosed by at least one insulated glass unit having first and second glass substrates and an electrochromic device attached between the glass substrates”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Tarng with the teachings of Snyker since Tarng teaches a means for power efficiency in electrochromic devices (0007).
The cited prior art do not teach and (f) characterizing leakage current from one or more of the optically switchable devices.
Cogan teaches and (f) characterizing leakage current from one or more of the optically switchable devices (7:50-55 “illustrate the superior properties of a-SiOC:H as a protective overlayer for electrochromic coatings, the rate of H.sub.2 O and ion transport through the films was determined using leakage current measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Snyker and the teachings of Tarng with the teachings of Cogan since Cogan teaches a means for protecting electrochromic devices (3:5-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Snyker (US PUB. 20130241299, herein Snyker) in view of Soto et al (US PUB. 201202757784, herein Soto) in further view of Cogan (US PAT. 5530581, herein Cogan).
Applicant argues that amendments to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner finds this to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the amendments to the claims. Examiner finds this argument persuasive. However, as a result of further search and consideration, Cogan has been introduced.
Cogan teaches measuring leakage current measurements in electrochromic coatings (7:50-55). This corresponds to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed characterizing of leakage current.
Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected. Claims 39 and 50 recite similar language and are similarly rejected along with their respective dependent claims.
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 TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2116