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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to RCE filed on 1/23/2026.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that no Information Disclosure Statement has been filed by the applicant as of the date of this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Amendments/§102 Rejection
Applicant Argues
SU (US20070277937A1) does not anticipate amended claims 1 or 12.
Examiner Response
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments are over amended features and are rejected over newly discovered prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU (US20070277937A1)1 in view of ENGLES (Engels, F., “Automatic Sun screen with sliding solar panels for roof window”, published 5/9/2013, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJmDj4iWWQ, retrieved on 2/4/2026) (hereinafter – “SU-ENGELS”).
Regarding claim 1, SU teaches a system comprising:
at least one rail connected to a wall of a building such that the at least one rail is parallel to a surface of a window that is within the wall of the building ([0028]: window covering device includes a track);
at least one moveable shade that is moveable in position about one or more of a lateral axis, vertical axis, or rotational axis with respect to a window of the building or house, wherein the at least one moveable shade is external to or internal to the window ([0028]: window covering device 4 includes a plurality of slides 46 slidably mounted on the track 45, and a light-shielding member 41 having an upper edge fixed to the slides 46), and
a programmable controller configured to selectively control movement of the at least one moveable shade about the lateral axis, vertical axis, and/or rotational axis ([0027]: controller 440 to move the light-shielding member);
[0030]: “When the light intensity exceeds a predetermined value, a signal is output to activate the motor 44 for moving the light-shielding member 41 downward for shielding the window 3”).
SU is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively moveable along the at least one rail to cover some or all of the window and shade being selectively moveable along the at least one rail to other positions for the window to be completely unshaded.
However, ENGELS in analogous art teaches a moveable shade that is selectively moveable along the at least one rail to cover some or all of the window and selectively moveable along the at least one rail to other positions for the window to be completely unshaded (Figs. 1-4 below show a moveable shade that is selectively moveable along at least one rail to cover some or all of a window or to leave a window completely unshaded).
PNG
media_image1.png
829
1236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ENGELS, Fig. 1 (0:09 mark) – shows moveable shade completely covering window
PNG
media_image2.png
829
1235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ENGELS, Fig. 2 (0:22 mark) – shows moveable shade partially covering window
PNG
media_image3.png
832
1237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ENGELS, Fig. 3 (0:30 mark) – shows moveable shade with window completely unshaded
PNG
media_image4.png
829
1243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
ENGELS, Fig. 4 (1:06 mark) – shows moveable shade with window completely unshaded
SU and ENGELS are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both from the same field of selectively moveable window covering devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of ENGELS to the teachings of SU such that SU’s controller could be used with ENGELS’s selectively moveable shades for the purposes of selectively shading windows in a roof (i.e., skylight style windows). Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, SU teaches a method comprising:
positioning at least one moveable shade [0028]: window covering device 4 includes a controllable motor 44, a track 45, a plurality of slides 46 slidably mounted on the track 45, and a light-shielding member 41):
selectively moving, using a programmable controller, the position of the at least one moveable shade along the at least one rail to cover some or all of the window; and regulating conditions of the building with the movable shade to account for at least one of incoming radiation, temperature, seasons, and time of day ([0029]-[0030]: responsive to light intensity threshold, motor is controlled to cause shades to cover window).
SU is not relied on for the one moveable shade being exterior to the building.
However, ENGELS in analogous art teaches positioning at least one moveable shade exterior to building along a rail that is connected to the building and that is parallel to a surface of a window of the building (Figs. 1-4 above show positioning a moveable shade exterior to a building along a rail that is connect to the building and that is parallel to a surface of a window of the building).
SU and ENGELS are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both from the same field of selectively moveable window covering devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of ENGELS to the teachings of SU such that SU’s controller could be used with ENGELS’s selectively moveable shades for the purposes of selectively shading windows in a roof (i.e., skylight style windows). Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claims 2-8, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU-ENGELS in view of CARLETON (US10938337B1)2 (hereinafter – “SU-ENGELS-CARLETON”).
Regarding claim 2, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the regulated conditions of the building or house comprise at least one of temperature and energy usage of the building or house.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the regulated conditions of the building or house comprise at least one of temperature and energy usage of the building or house (Col. 8, ln. 15-20: conditions regulated via control system, integrated with an energy management control system in order to optimize energy performance of the building as a whole and comfort of the occupants).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system wherein the windows are covered in order to control the amount of light entering the building through the window responsive to a threshold of light intensity. CARLETON teaches a window covering system configured to control the amount of light entering the building through the window responsive to a threshold of temperature and energy. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute SU’s light intensity threshold for CARLETON’s temperature threshold to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively moveable along the vertical axis of the window of the building.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively moveable along the vertical axis of the window of the building (Col. 3, ln. 39-44 and Fig. 1: parallel guide rails are vertical disposed so panel units are capable of moving up and down the side of the build so they can be placed over building’s windows).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. CARLETON teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CARLETON and SU-ENGELS according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively moveable in the lateral axis along rails positioned at or on the respective window.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively moveable in the lateral axis along rails positioned at or on the respective window (Col. 4, ln. 33-35: “though it is understood that any direction disposition of the parallel guide rails 114 can be implemented in alternative embodiments”).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. CARLETON teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CARLETON and SU-ENGELS according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively rotatable about the rotation axis such that the angular position of a rotatable panel portion, relative to the window, has a non-zero angular orientation and a non-zero tilt angle.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the at least one moveable shade is selectively rotatable about the rotation axis such that the angular position of a rotatable panel portion, relative to the window, has a non-zero angular orientation and a non-zero tilt angle (Abstract and Fig. 1: control system adjusts the angle of the respective panel 111/rotatable potion relative to the building wall which the window is on).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. CARLETON teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CARLETON and SU-ENGELS according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises at least one rotatable panel portion.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises at least one rotatable panel portion (Col. 9, ln.30-31 and Fig. 1: panel 111/rotatable portion on panel unit 110/moveable shades are adjustable in angle position).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. CARLETON teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CARLETON and SU-ENGELS according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, SU-ENGELS-CARLETON teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. CARLETON also teaches wherein the rotatable panel portion comprises one or more photovoltaic elements (Col. 3, ln. 49-51, and Fig. 1: panels 111/rotatable portion are active in the sense that they generate energy from photovoltaic cells).
Regarding claim 8, SU-ENGELS-CARLETON teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. CARLETON also teaches wherein the rotatable panel portion is configured as an overhang (Fig. 1: shows panels 111/rotatable panels configured as an overhang).
Regarding claim 13, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 3 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 14, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as claim 5 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 15, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises at least one panel portion comprising at least one photovoltaic element.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises at least one panel portion comprising at least one photovoltaic element (Col. 3, ln. 49-51, and Fig. 1: panels 111/rotatable portion are active in the sense that they generate energy from photovoltaic cells).
SU-ENGELS teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. CARLETON teaches a window covering system for a building with a control system that is responsive to environmental conditions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine CARLETON and SU-ENGELS according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU-ENGELS in view of FORBIS (US20170191262A1)3.
Regarding claim 9, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises one or more layers of insulation.
However, FORBIS in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation (FORBIS, Pg.1, Para. [0002]: "present invention relates to a unique, modular panel that has significant insulating and protective characteristics along with many uses/applications in various industries ... present invention serves as anew type of 'shade panel' which alone, or in combination with other like or identical panels, creates a new type of 'shade structure' or 'shading device"').
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine SU-ENGELS and FORBIS. The rationale for doing so would be that SU-ENGELS teaches a shade system comprising at least one moveable shade to control incoming solar radiation to regulate building conditions. FORBIS teaches using insulating shading devices to increase the heat blocking capacity of the building. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of SU-ENGELS and FORBIS for the benefit of reducing undesirable thermal gains and/or losses within the building.
Regarding claim 16, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 9 and are rejected due to the reasons outlined above.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU-ENGELS in view of BARKER (WO 99/22105)4 (hereinafter – “SU-ENGELS-BARKER”).
Regarding claim 10, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for where the at least one moveable shade comprises at least two moveable shades, the at least two moveable shades comprising a first moveable shade and a second moveable shade, and wherein the first moveable shade and the second moveable shade are selectively moveable along at least the lateral axis with respect to one a not her such that the first moveable shade and the second moveable shade cover some or all of the window.
However, BARKER in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation (Pg. 9, lines 15-26: "it is anticipated that the invention herein may be implemented on both single slide doors and bi-part doors, i.e., two doors which slide closed together ... it is anticipated that the system 10 of this invention could be implemented on other door types ... as well as on windows, louvers, blinds, and other physical partitions which mechanically close over apertures or openings in a wall").
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine SU-ENGELS and BARKER. The rationale for doing so would be that SU teaches the concepts of a programmable moveable shade system. BARKER teaches a bi-parting partition system to provide a programmable moveable partition system which can open partitions in response to a variety of signals and also has the ability to close the partitions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try combining the teaching of SU-ENGELS and BARKER to implement a bi-part shading device for the benefit of improved customizability provided by the bi-parting shading devices to cover the windows of a building or house.
Regarding claim 11, SU-ENGELS-BARKER teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. BARKER also teaches wherein the programmable controller is configured to selectively move the first moveable shade and second moveable shade (Pg. 2, lines 20-26: programmable moveable partition system which can open and close partitions in response to a variety of signals and partitions may be programmed to move independently).
Regarding claim 18, SU-ENGELS teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. SU-ENGELS is not relied on for wherein the at least one moveable shade comprises at least two moveable shades, the at least two moveable shades comprising a first moveable shade and a second moveable shade, and wherein the first moveable shade and second moveable shade are selectively moveable, using the programmable controller.
However, BARKER in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation (Pg. 2, lines 20-26: programmable moveable partition system which can open and close partitions in response to a variety of signals and partitions may be programmed to move independently).
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine SU-ENGELS and BARKER. The rationale for doing so would be that SU teaches the concepts of a programmable moveable shade system. BARKER teaches a bi-parting partition system to provide a programmable moveable partition system which can open partitions in response to a variety of signals and also has the ability to close the partitions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try combining the teaching of SU-ENGELS and BARKER to implement a bi-part shading device for the benefit of improved customizability provided by the bi-parting shading devices to cover the windows of a building or house.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU-ENGELS-BARKER in view of CARLETON (US10938337B1)5.
Regarding claim 19, SU-ENGELS-BARKER teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined
above. SU-ENGELS-BARKER is not relied on for changing, using the programmable controller, at least the vertical position and the rotation angle of the at least one moveable shade.
However, CARLETON in an analogous art teaches changing, using the programmable controller (Col. 3 lines 11-19: automated panel system is configured to convey the panel units to an operational location on the building wall), at least the vertical position (Col. 3, lines 39-44 and Fig. 1: the parallel guide rails 114 are disposed vertically, so the panel units 110 are capable of moving up and down the side of the building so they can be placed over building's windows) and the rotation angle of the at least one moveable shade (Abstract and Fig. 1: control system adjusts the angle of the respective panel 111/rotatable portion relative to the building wall which the window is on).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of CARLETON to the teachings of SU-ENGELS-BARKER such that CARLETON’s changeable rotation angle could be used with SU-ENGELS-BARKER’s method for the purposes of changing the angle of the shade to correspond with the angle of the sun relative to the building to allow for maximum shading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 SU is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 CARLETON is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
3 FORBIS is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 BARKER is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
5 CARLETON is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.