DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 appears to require limitations already found in lines 10-23 of the independent claim.
Claim 27 recites “a plurality of positions” on lines 5-6, but this should recite “the plurality of positions”
Claim 28 recites “a plurality of positions” on lines 5-6, but this should recite “the plurality of positions”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Yonezawa (US 20090133749) and Derk (US 20140345807).
Regarding claim 1, Geiger teaches a solar panel shade system (fig. 1), comprising: a shade tube (120);
a solar panel shade (140, per paragraph 21) coupled to the shade tube, the solar panel shade comprising a front, outward facing surface (surface on which the solar panel film is found, is considered outward facing as it faces a direction away from the shade) including solar panel film material (paragraph 24 describes that solar film that converts sunlight to energy is found on the fabric shade), and a back outward facing surface (side opposite to the front surface, is also considered outward facing as it faces the opposite direction that is also away from the shade);
a motor (paragraph 38) coupled to the shade tube and configured to cause the shade tube to rotate to retract or deploy the solar panel shade; and
a processing circuit (paragraph 38) comprising one or more memory devices coupled to a processor, the one or more memory devices configured to (capable of) store instructions thereon that (described in paragraph 38), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph 38) including:
receiving data indicative of a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (via illumination sensor which sends data indicative of the first solar angle of incidence relative to the shade);
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position, the first position being based on the first solar angle of incidence (capable of, paragraph 48 teaches that the shade can be operated and adjusted based on data from the illumination sensor, this first position can be the shade fully deployed for example);
receive data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (in same way as above, it is capable of this as multiple states are described in paragraph 48); and
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position (this can be the shade fully retracted), the second position being based on the second solar angle of incidence (illumination sensor can detect), the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence;
wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least the first position, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant.
Geiger does not explicitly teach that the back surface is at least partially covered with a heat-resistant paint, nor the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level, and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level.
Yonezawa teaches a surface of a solar panel with a ceramic heat resistant paint (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with the teachings of Yonezawa so that the back surface of the solar panel shade includes a ceramic heat-resistant paint. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the rear side from excess heat, but also proves a more aesthetically pleasing surface, as paint in known to make surfaces look better.
Derk teaches a motorized shade system with a processing circuit (paragraph 51) comprised of one or more memory devices (204) coupled to a processor (208), the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that (paragraph 51), when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations including: control operation of the motor receiving a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (paragraph 51 describes that there are many solar angle of incidents, and that the system adjusts the motor to control shade height in a way to only allow a certain max sunlight penetration), the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level: operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position, the first position being based on the first solar angle of incidence, receiving data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (paragraph 51 describes that there are many solar angle of incidents, and that the system adjusts the motor to control shade height in a way to only allow a certain max sunlight penetration), the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level; and operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position, the second position being based on the second solar angle of incidence wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the first position or the second position, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant (paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger with teachings of Derk so that the processor can perform operations including: control operation of the motor receiving a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade, the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level: operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position, the first position being based on the first solar angle of incidence, receiving data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade, the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level; and operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position, the second position being based on the second solar angle of incidence wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the first position or the second position, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Geiger teaches that the solar panel shade comprises the solar panel film material attached to a shade material (paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 3, modified Geiger teaches that the solar panel film material is laminated (paragraph 24 recites that the solar film may be applied by any method known in the art. Also, the definition of laminate from thefreedictionary.com is found below, see especially definition 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the embodiment of modified Geiger doesn’t explicitly teach that the solar panel shade comprises at least two solar panels.
Geiger further teaches a solar panel shade comprises at least two solar panels (paragraph 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger so that the solar panel shade comprises at least two solar panels. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of providing more surface to collect energy.
Regarding claim 8, modified Geiger teaches that the heat-resistant pain is a ceramic paint (paragraph 41 of Yonezawa and see modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Geiger teaches that the motor is a low voltage DC motor (paragraph 28 teaches that the electricity produced by the shade may be used to power the motor of the shade, paragraph 29 describes the power as low voltage, and it is well known that solar panels produce DC current).
Regarding claim 12, modified Geiger teaches that the processor is configured to control the motor to manipulate the solar panel shade based on a solar angle of incidence (see claim 1 modification above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Geiger teaches that the solar panel shade can be positioned on the inside or the outside of a building window (capable of).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Yonezawa (US 20090133749) and Derk (US 20140345807) as applied above, and further in view of Hontz (US 20160137282).
Regarding claim 4, modified Geiger doesn’t teach that the solar panel film material comprises at least one of: silicon/crystalline panels, thin-film panels, or organic cell panels.
Hontz teaches a solar window shade that comprises crystalline panels (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger so that the solar panel film material comprises crystalline panels. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a well know and reliable material that is easy to acquire to manufacture.
Regarding claim 6, modified Geiger doesn’t teach that the solar panel film material is attached to the solar panel shade using a heat-resistant adhesive.
Hontz teaches a solar window shade that uses a heat resistant adhesive to attach a solar panel material to a shade (EVA from paragraph 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger so that the solar panel film material is attached to the solar panel shade using a heat-resistant adhesive. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a well know and reliable material that is easy to acquire to manufacture.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Yonezawa (US 20090133749) and Derk (US 20140345807) as applied above, and further in view of in view of Poirier (US 20200185965).
Regarding claim 11, modified Geiger does not teach that the motor is a rechargeable motor that includes a charging port.
Poirier teaches (fig. 2), a shade system with a rechargeable motor that includes a charging port (102, paragraphs 47-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger so that the motor is a rechargeable motor that includes a charging port. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the motor being able to still operate even in prolonged periods of darkness.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Yonezawa (US 20090133749) and Derk (US 20140345807) as applied above, and further in view of Cooney (US 20180347271).
Regarding claim 13, modified Geiger does not teach an occupancy sensor, wherein the processor is configured to control the motor to manipulate the solar panel shade based on occupancy of a room.
Cooney teaches a motorized window shade with an occupancy sensor (646), wherein a processor is configured to control a device based on occupancy of a room (paragraph 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger with the teachings of Cooney so that it has an occupancy sensor, wherein the processor is configured to control the motor to manipulate the solar panel shade based on occupancy of a room. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically lowering a shade based on occupancy, to make room conditions more comfortable for a user.
Claim(s) 22, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Khajavi (US 20050056382).
Regarding claim 22, Geiger teaches a solar panel shade system (fig. 1), comprising: a shade tube (120);
a solar panel shade (140 per paragraph 21) coupled to the shade tube, the solar panel shade comprising a front, outward-facing surface (surface on which the solar panel film is found, is considered outward facing as it faces a direction away from the shade) including solar panel film material (paragraph 24 describes that solar film that converts sunlight to energy is found on the fabric shade) and a back, outward facing surface (side opposite to the front surface, is also considered outward facing as it faces the opposite direction that is also away from the shade);
a motor (paragraph 48) coupled to the shade tube and configured to cause the shade tube to rotate to retract or deploy the solar panel shade; and
a processing circuit (paragraph 38) comprising one or more memory devices coupled to a processor, the one or more memory devices configured to (capable of) store instructions thereon that (described in paragraph 38), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph 38) including:
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position of a plurality of positions (paragraph 38), wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the plurality of positions, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant (paragraph 38, capable of).
Geiger does not explicitly teach the processor receiving a compass direction in which a window associated with the solar panel shade is facing, nor the plurality of positions being based on the compass direction in which the window associated with the solar panel shade is facing.
Khajavi teaches a window blind with a processor that receives a compass direction in which a window is facing (paragraph 95), and adjusts the blind to a plurality of positions being based on the compass direction in which the window is facing (paragraph 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with teachings of Khajavi so that the processor can receive a compass direction in which a window associated with the solar panel shade is facing, with the plurality of positions being based on the compass direction in which the window associated with the solar panel shade is facing. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user.
Regarding claim 26, Geiger teaches a solar panel shade system (fig. 1), comprising: a shade tube (120);
a solar panel shade (140 per paragraph 21) coupled to the shade tube, the solar panel shade comprising a front, outward-facing surface (surface on which the solar panel film is found, is considered outward facing as it faces a direction away from the shade) including solar panel film material (paragraph 24 describes that solar film that converts sunlight to energy is found on the fabric shade) and a back, outward facing surface (side opposite to the front surface, is also considered outward facing as it faces the opposite direction that is also away from the shade);
a motor (paragraph 48) coupled to the shade tube and configured to cause the shade tube to rotate to retract or deploy the solar panel shade; and
a processing circuit (paragraph 38) comprising one or more memory devices coupled to a processor, the one or more memory devices configured to (capable of) store instructions thereon that (described in paragraph 38), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph 38) including:
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position of a plurality of positions (paragraph 38), wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the plurality of positions, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant (paragraph 38, capable of).
Geiger does not explicitly teach the processor receiving a building global position of a building associated with the solar panel shade, nor the plurality of positions being based on the building global position associated with the solar panel shade.
Khajavi teaches a window blind with a processor that receives a building global position of a building associated, and adjusts the blinds to a plurality of positions being based on the building global position (paragraph 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with teachings of Khajavi so that the processor receives a building global position of a building associated with the solar panel shade, and so the plurality of positions being based on the building global position associated with the solar panel shade. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user.
Regarding claim 28, wherein the instructions (the examiner notes that this is still treated as configured to language), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform further operations including:
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to the first position of the plurality of positions (paragraph 38), the plurality of positions being based on the building global position (see claim 26 rejection above.
Geiger does not explicitly teach the processor receiving at least one of a compass direction in which a window associated with the solar panel shade faces, nor the plurality of positions being based on the compass direction which the window associated with the solar panel shade is facing.
Khajavi teaches a window blind with a processor that receives a compass direction in which a window is facing (paragraph 95), and adjusts the blind to a plurality of positions being based on the compass direction in which the window is facing (paragraph 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with teachings of Khajavi so that the processor can receive a compass direction in which a window associated with the solar panel shade is facing, with the plurality of positions being based on the compass direction in which the window associated with the solar panel shade is facing. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Khajavi (US 20050056382) as applied above, and further in view of Poirier (US 20200185965).
Regarding claim 23, modified Geiger teaches a battery (paragraph 39) coupled with the solar panel film material such that the battery receives electricity generated by the solar panel film material (paragraph 39); and that it is configured to transmit electricity to other devices (on home power grid). Modified Geiger does not teach a power over ethernet device coupled with the battery and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by direct current.
Poirier teaches a roller shade with a battery (230) and a power over ethernet device (803, paragraph 77) coupled with the battery and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by direct current (paragraph 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger with teachings of Poirier so that there is a power over ethernet device coupled with the battery and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by direct current. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of providing more utility to the device by allowing it to charge devices in a conventional manner.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Khajavi (US 20050056382) as applied above, and further in view of Oppizzi (US 20140027069).
Regarding claim 24, modified Geiger does not teach an inverter coupled with the battery and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by alternating current.
Oppizzi teaches a roller solar panel shade with an inverter (7) coupled with a battery (8) and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by alternating current (paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger so that it has an inverter coupled with the battery and configured to transmit electricity from the battery to one or more devices powered by alternating current. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of providing more utility to the device by allowing it to charge devices in a conventional manner.
Claim(s) 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Khajavi (US 20050056382) as applied above, and further in view of Yonezawa (US 20090133749).
Regarding claim 25, modified Geiger teaches that the solar panel shade further comprises a shade backing material (this is the fabric shade from paragraph 24), wherein the solar panel film material is on a front surface of the shade backing material, but does not explicitly teach that a back surface of the shade backing material is at least partially covered with heat-resistant paint.
Yonezawa teaches a surface of a solar panel with a ceramic heat resistant paint (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with the teachings of Yonezawa so that the back surface of the solar panel shade includes a ceramic heat-resistant paint. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the rear side from excess heat, but also proves a more aesthetically pleasing surface, as paint in known to make surfaces look better.
Regarding claim 29, modified Geiger teaches that the solar panel shade further comprises a shade backing material (this is the fabric shade from paragraph 24), wherein the solar panel film material is on a front surface of the shade backing material, but does not explicitly teach that a back surface of the shade backing material is at least partially covered with heat-resistant paint.
Yonezawa teaches a surface of a solar panel with a ceramic heat resistant paint (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with the teachings of Yonezawa so that the back surface of the solar panel shade includes a ceramic heat-resistant paint. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the rear side from excess heat, but also proves a more aesthetically pleasing surface, as paint in known to make surfaces look better.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger (US 20190162022) in view of Khajavi (US 20050056382) as applied above, and further in view of Derk (US 20140345807).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the instructions (the examiner notes that this is still treated as configured to language), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform further operations including:
receiving data indicative of a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (via illumination sensor which sends data indicative of the first solar angle of incidence relative to the shade);
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position of a plurality of positions, the plurality of positions being based on the building global position (after modification to claim 26 above) and the first solar angle of incidence (capable of, paragraph 48 teaches that the shade can be operated and adjusted based on data from the illumination sensor, this first position can be the shade fully deployed for example);
receive data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (in same way as above, it is capable of this as multiple states are described in paragraph 48); and
operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position (this can be the shade fully retracted) of the plurality of positions, the second position being based on the building global position (see claim 26 rejection above) and the second solar angle of incidence (illumination sensor can detect), that the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence.
Geiger does not explicitly teach that the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level, and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level.
Derk teaches a motorized shade system with a processing circuit (paragraph 51) comprised of one or more memory devices (204) coupled to a processor (208), the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that (paragraph 51), when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations including: control operation of the motor receiving a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (paragraph 51 describes that there are many solar angle of incidents, and that the system adjusts the motor to control shade height in a way to only allow a certain max sunlight penetration), the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level: operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position, the first position being based on the first solar angle of incidence, receiving data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade (paragraph 51 describes that there are many solar angle of incidents, and that the system adjusts the motor to control shade height in a way to only allow a certain max sunlight penetration), the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level; and operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position, the second position being based on the second solar angle of incidence wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the first position or the second position, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant (paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Geiger with teachings of Derk so that the processor can perform operations including: control operation of the motor receiving a first solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade, the first solar angle of incidence having a first non-zero light level: operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a first position, the first position being based on the first solar angle of incidence, receiving data indicative of a second solar angle of incidence relative to the solar panel shade, the second solar angle of incidence different from the first solar angle of incidence and having a second non-zero light level different from the first non-zero light level; and operating the motor to deploy the solar panel shade to a second position, the second position being based on the second solar angle of incidence wherein the solar panel shade is partially deployed in at least one of the first position or the second position, allowing at least partial visibility of an exterior environment to an occupant. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the above rejection does not include a 35 U.S.C.§ 102 Rejection, so arguments pertaining that are moot.
In response to applicant's argument that Yonezawa does not teach paint on the back surface, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Geiger clearly teaches the structure as described above, including a back surface. Yonezawa clearly teaches a surface of a solar panel with a ceramic heat resistant paint (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Geiger with the teachings of Yonezawa so that the back surface of the solar panel shade includes a ceramic heat-resistant paint. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the rear side from excess heat, but also proves a more aesthetically pleasing surface, as paint in known to make surfaces look better.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it an obvious modification to take a processor that can already determine the presence of light, and modify it to be able to detect different levels of light. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of automatically adjusting the device based on a desired light level in the room without effort on the part of a user. The examiner also notes that many limitations found in the claims are merely reciting “configured to” language rather than required structure. The device merely needs to be capable of preforming the required functions, which is demonstrated in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights