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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “privacy based condition” or what constitutes “additional privacy within the environment of interest.” Specifically, is it unclear what conditions would be considered “privacy based” conditions as such a term is not defined and any “condition” could potentially be “privacy based.” Thus, the metes and bounds of “a privacy based condition” are not clearly defined.
Moreover, this limitation depends solely on the subjective opinion of the user, as there is no objective standard of a privacy based condition or additional privacy. Specifically, a condition that is considered “privacy based” for one user may not be “privacy based” for another, and it is unclear what specifically is required for something to be “privacy based.” Similarly, a device that provides additional privacy for one user may not provide additional privacy for another.
It has been found that when subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. Furthermore, a claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgement without restriction renders the claim indefinite. Since there is no objective standard for determining whether a condition is privacy based or there is additional privacy, claim 1 indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970); Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45 (MPEP § 2173.05(b)III).
For the purposes of examination, any system that determines a condition related to a person within the environment of interest and adjusts the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the condition will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites “obtain, with a first sensor, context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling…detect, with a second sensor, a person outside of the dwelling…determine the person outside the dwelling is not known.” However, it is unclear how it can be determined if “the person outside the dwelling is not known.” Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes a person being “known.” It is unclear if such a determination is intended to identify a person that is not known to the system, to a person inside the dwelling, or to some other element. Moreover, celebrities and other well-known individuals could be “known” to a person but may not be recognized by the system and it is unclear if such a person would be “known” in the context of the claim. Similarly, a well-known criminal that news articles suggest being wary of could be “known” to a user but it is unclear if the system is intended to adjust the transparent medium in such a situation.
Moreover, this limitation depends solely on the subjective opinion of the user, as there is no objective standard of whether or not a person is known. Specifically, a person that is known to one occupant of the dwelling may not be known to another occupant of the dwelling.
It has been found that when subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. Furthermore, a claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgement without restriction renders the claim indefinite. Since there is no objective standard for determining whether a condition is privacy based or there is additional privacy, claim 1 indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970); Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45 (MPEP § 2173.05(b)III).
Further, the term “known” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “known” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of interaction is required for a person to be “known” in the context of the claim (e.g. a person comes to a dwelling more than once such as a delivery courier or salesman might be “known,” a contractor contacted to fix an issue could be “known,” etc.).
For the purposes of examination, any method that determines a person outside the dwelling and adjusts the tint layer in response will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 10 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Similarly, claim 15 recites “the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from the second sensor and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm.” As with claim 10 above, it is unclear how the method is to “determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm” as it is unclear what constitutes whether or not a person is known.
For the purposes of examination, any method that determines a person outside the dwelling and adjusts the tint layer in response will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the transparent medium based on the auxiliary context data to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest.” As with claim 1, it is unclear what constitutes “additional privacy within the environment of interest.”
Moreover, this limitation depends solely on the subjective opinion of the user, as there is no objective standard of a privacy based condition or additional privacy. Specifically, a device that provides additional privacy for one user may not provide additional privacy for another.
It has been found that when subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. Furthermore, a claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgement without restriction renders the claim indefinite. Since there is no objective standard for determining whether a condition is privacy based or there is additional privacy, claim 1 indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970); Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45 (MPEP § 2173.05(b)III).
For the purposes of examination, any system that determines a condition related to a person within the environment of interest and adjusts the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the condition will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnum et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0257179; hereinafter – “Barnum”).
Regarding claim 1, Barnum teaches a system for controlling light through a transparent medium, comprising:
at least one sensor (122, 124, 206, 216) configured to obtain context data within an environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037 and 0050-0053);
a controller (126) configured to be in communication with the at least one sensor to obtain the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0052-0054, 0057, 0059-0060, and 0065);
an actuating device (104) in communication with the controller and coupled to the transparent medium (130) and configured to dynamically adjust a characteristic of the transparent medium related to light based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065); and
the controller comprising: a memory (204, 214) to store executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069, 0086, and 0089); and one or more processors (202, 212), when implementing the executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069-0070, 0084, and 0095), to: determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082); and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 2, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to determine an electronic device (122, 140, 142, 144, 206) in the environment of interest; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium also based on the electronic device determined to be in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0032, 0035-0037 and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 3, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 4, Barnum teaches the system of claim 3, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from a remote device (122, 140, 142, 144, 206) and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the condition using the artificial intelligence algorithm (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 5, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the at least one sensor is on an electronic device in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0032, 0035-0037 and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 6, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the at least one sensor is one of a light detector, motion detector, or camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0050-0054, and 0077).
Regarding claim 7, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the actuating device is configured to dynamically adjust a tint layer of the transparent medium (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065).
Regarding claim 8, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the transparent medium is part of at least one of a window, door or windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065).
Regarding claim 9, Barnum teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the actuating device is a direct current (DC) power supply (Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 16, Barnum teaches a system for controlling light through a window of a dwelling, comprising:
a controller (126) having a sensor (122, 124, 206, 216) for obtaining context data related to an environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0050-0054, 0057, 0059-0060, and 0065); and
an actuating device (104) in communication with the controller and coupled to the window and configured to dynamically adjust a transparent medium (130) of the window (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065);
the controller comprising: a memory (204, 214) to store executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069, 0086, and 0089); and one or more processors (202, 212), when implementing the executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069-0070, 0084, and 0095), to: determine a condition related to the environment of interest based on the context data obtained from the sensor of the controller (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082); and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the transparent medium based on the condition determined (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 17, Barnum teaches the system of claim 16, as above.
Barnum further teaches an electronic device (122, 140, 142, 144, 206) related to the environment of interest and in communication with the controller, the electronic device configured to obtain electronic device context data and communicate the electronic device context data to the controller; the one or more processors further configured to: determine the condition based on the context data and the electronic device context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0032, 0035-0037 and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 18, Barnum teaches the system of claim 17, as above.
Barnum further teaches that to determine the condition based on the context data and the electronic device context data an artificial intelligence algorithm is utilized (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 19, Barnum teaches the system of claim 16, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is a lack of a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 20, Barnum teaches the method of claim 16, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is identification of a person approaching the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 21, Barnum teaches the method of claim 16, as above.
Barnum further teaches a second sensor (122, 124, 206, 216) in communication with the controller and configured to obtain auxiliary context data; and wherein the one or more processors further configured to: command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the transparent medium based on the auxiliary context data to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagel et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0257143; hereinafter – “Nagel”).
Regarding claim 1, Nagel teaches a system for controlling light through a transparent medium, comprising:
at least one sensor (212) configured to obtain context data within an environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0023, 0029, 0034-0037, 0040, 0042, 0045, and 0052);
a controller (114) configured to be in communication with the at least one sensor to obtain the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, 0034-0045, and 0052-0055);
an actuating device (208) in communication with the controller and coupled to the transparent medium (202) and configured to dynamically adjust a characteristic of the transparent medium related to light based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0036-0055); and
the controller comprising: a memory (1403) to store executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0045, 0051, and 0055); and one or more processors (1401), when implementing the executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0045, 0051, and 0055), to: determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054); and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054).
Regarding claim 2, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to determine an electronic device (102, 122, 136, 138, 214) in the environment of interest; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium also based on the electronic device determined to be in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0036-0055).
Regarding claim 3, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 4, Nagel teaches the system of claim 3, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from a remote device (102, 122, 130, 136, 138, 210, 212, 214) and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the condition using the artificial intelligence algorithm (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0034-0055).
Regarding claim 5, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the at least one sensor is on an electronic device in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0036-0055).
Regarding claim 6, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the at least one sensor is one of a light detector, motion detector, or camera (See e.g. Figs. 6-9; Paragraphs 0036-0044).
Regarding claim 7, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the actuating device is configured to dynamically adjust a tint layer of the transparent medium (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0029, 0040-0041, and 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 8, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the transparent medium is part of at least one of a window, door or windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0034-0055).
Regarding claim 9, Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the actuating device is a direct current (DC) power supply (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 10, Nagel teaches a method, comprising:
under control of one or more processors (1401) including program instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0045, 0051, and 0055) to:
obtain, with a first sensor (212, 602, 604, 608, 610, 612, 804), context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052);
detect, with a second sensor (212, 604, 702, 704, 804), a person outside of the dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052);
determine a condition within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054);
determine the person outside the dwelling is not known (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054); and
dynamically adjust, with an actuating device (208), a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition and determining the person is not known (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054).
Regarding claim 11, Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the condition determined is a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052).
Regarding claim 12, Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the condition determined is a lack of a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052).
Regarding claim 14, Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Nagel further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 15, Nagel teaches the method of claim 14, as above.
Nagel further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from the second sensor and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0034-0055).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-15 and 21 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnum in view of Nagel.
Regarding claim 1, Barnum teaches a system for controlling light through a transparent medium, comprising:
at least one sensor (122, 124, 206, 216) configured to obtain context data within an environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037 and 0050-0053);
a controller (126) configured to be in communication with the at least one sensor to obtain the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0052-0054, 0057, 0059-0060, and 0065);
an actuating device (104) in communication with the controller and coupled to the transparent medium (130) and configured to dynamically adjust a characteristic of the transparent medium related to light based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065); and
the controller comprising: a memory (204, 214) to store executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069, 0086, and 0089); and one or more processors (202, 212), when implementing the executable instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069-0070, 0084, and 0095), to: determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082); and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082).
While Barnum teaches a system reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Examiner further submits reference Nagel.
Nagel teaches a security focused system for smart windows comprising at least one sensor (212) configured to obtain context data within an environment of interest; a controller (114) configured to be in communication with the at least one sensor to obtain the context data; an actuating device (208) in communication with the controller and coupled to the transparent medium and configured to dynamically adjust a characteristic of the transparent medium related to light based on the context data; and the controller comprising: a memory to store executable instructions; and one or more processors, when implementing the executable instructions, to: determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054).
Nagel teaches this privacy based condition and providing additional security as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” (Paragraph 0050) and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, even if Barnum did not disclose that the condition determined was a privacy based condition and the actuating device adjusts the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barnum such that the condition is a privacy based condition and the transparent medium provides additional security as in Nagel as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel,” as taught by Nagel (Paragraphs 0035 and 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to determine an electronic device (122, 140, 142, 144, 206) in the environment of interest; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium also based on the electronic device determined to be in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0032, 0035-0037 and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 3, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 4, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 3, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from a remote device (122, 140, 142, 144, 206) and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the condition using the artificial intelligence algorithm (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 5, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the at least one sensor is on an electronic device in the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0032, 0035-0037 and 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 6, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the at least one sensor is one of a light detector, motion detector, or camera (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0050-0054, and 0077).
Regarding claim 7, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the actuating device is configured to dynamically adjust a tint layer of the transparent medium (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065).
Regarding claim 8, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the transparent medium is part of at least one of a window, door or windshield (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, and 0065).
Regarding claim 9, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the system of claim 1, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the actuating device is a direct current (DC) power supply (Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 10, Barnum teaches a method, comprising:
under control of one or more processors (202, 212) including program instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069-0070, 0084, and 0095) to:
obtain, with at least one sensor (122, 124, 206, 216), context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037 and 0050-0053);
detect, with a second sensor, context data outside of the dwelling (Paragraph 0068);
determine a condition within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082); and
dynamically adjust, with an actuating device (104), a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, 0062-0065, and 0081-0082).
Barnum fails to explicitly disclose detecting, with a second sensor, a person outside the dwelling, determining the person outside the dwelling is not known, and dynamically adjusting, with an actuating device, a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition and determining that the person is not known.
However, Nagel teaches a security focused system for smart windows including a method comprising under control of one or more processors (1401) including program instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0045, 0051, and 0055) to: obtain, with a first sensor (212, 602, 604, 608, 610, 612, 804), context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052); detect, with a second sensor (212, 604, 702, 704, 804), a person outside of the dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0045, and 0052); determine a condition within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054); determine the person outside the dwelling is not known (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054); and dynamically adjust, with an actuating device (208), a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition and determining the person is not known (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054).
Nagel teaches detecting a person outside the dwelling and determining that the person is not known as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” (Paragraph 0050) and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Barnum with the detecting of a person outside the dwelling and determining that the person is not known of Nagel as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel,” as taught by Nagel (Paragraphs 0035 and 0050).
Regarding claim 11, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 12, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is a lack of a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 14, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 15, Barnum in view of Nagel teaches the method of claim 14, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from the second sensor and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Additionally, Nagel further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from the second sensor and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-14; Paragraphs 0023, 0027-0031, and 0034-0055).
Regarding claim 21, Barnum teaches the method of claim 16, as above.
Barnum further teaches a second sensor (122, 124, 206, 216) in communication with the controller and configured to obtain auxiliary context data; and wherein the one or more processors further configured to: command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the transparent medium based on the auxiliary context data to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
While Barnum teaches a system reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Examiner further submits reference Nagel.
Nagel teaches a security focused system for smart windows comprising at least one sensor (212) configured to obtain context data within an environment of interest; a controller (114) configured to be in communication with the at least one sensor to obtain the context data; an actuating device (208) in communication with the controller and coupled to the transparent medium and configured to dynamically adjust a characteristic of the transparent medium related to light based on the context data; and the controller comprising: a memory to store executable instructions; and one or more processors, when implementing the executable instructions, to: determine a privacy based condition related to a person within the environment of interest based on the context data; and command the actuating device to dynamically adjust the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 6-13; Paragraphs 0030, 0039, 0043-0044, and 0049-0054).
Nagel teaches this privacy based condition and providing additional security as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” (Paragraph 0050) and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, even if Barnum did not disclose that the actuating device adjusts the characteristic of the transparent medium based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Barnum such that the transparent medium provides additional security as in Nagel as it “allows people to hide in a darkened safe room 1202, while the other rooms are highlighted internally and externally by lighting and maximum transmissivity smart windows 102 so that responding police or security personnel can more readily identify and apprehend an intruder 902” and to provide “a security focused system for smart windows…featuring specialized behaviors and capabilities dedicated to detecting and reacting to security events” with “various mechanisms for detecting a personal or property security threat such as an intrusion or an intruder, a fire or smoke, carbon monoxide, chemical or other hazardous air quality, etc., and for controlling transmissivity of smart windows so as to prove advantageous to occupants or emergency personnel,” as taught by Nagel (Paragraphs 0035 and 0050).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-15 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnum in view of Sangle-Ferriere (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0390215).
Regarding claim 10, Barnum teaches a method, comprising:
under control of one or more processors (202, 212) including program instructions (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0060, 0069-0070, 0084, and 0095) to:
obtain, with at least one sensor (122, 124, 206, 216), context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035-0037 and 0050-0053);
detect, with a second sensor, context data outside of the dwelling (Paragraph 0068);
determine a condition within the environment of interest based on the context data (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0081-0082); and
dynamically adjust, with an actuating device (104), a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0038, 0045, 0058-0059, 0062-0065, and 0081-0082).
Barnum fails to explicitly disclose detecting, with a second sensor, a person outside the dwelling, determining the person outside the dwelling is not known, and dynamically adjusting, with an actuating device, a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition and determining that the person is not known.
However, Sangle-Ferriere teaches a method for automatically protecting an object, a person or an item of information or visual work from a risk of unwanted viewing comprising under control of one or more processors including program instructions to: obtain, with a first sensor, context data within an environment of interest within a dwelling; detect, with a second sensor, a person outside of the dwelling; determine a condition within the environment of interest based on the context data; determine the person outside the dwelling is not known; and dynamically adjust, with an actuating device, a tint layer of a transparent medium to vary light within the environment of interest based on the condition and determining the person is not known (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0010-0012, 0020, 0026, 0031-0035, 0038-0039, 0050, 0085-0092, and 0095-0097).
Sangle-Ferriere teaches detecting a person outside the dwelling and determining that the person is not known as it “allows active, effective and discrete protection of a displayed item of content or entered data” such that “the user no longer has to worry about being watched, since the system monitors this for them, and they may thus focus on other tasks” and “the risk of information leakage or pirating is decreased” (Paragraph 0013), and it “makes it possible to protect an object such as a work of art in a museum, by generating an alert if an image-recording and/or -transmission device is detected in the field of view of the work and/or by masking the object behind a glazing that can be opacified on demand, such as an electrochromic glazing” (Paragraph 0014) and “to prevent people other than this user from gaining knowledge of the displayed content” (Paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Barnum with the detecting of a person outside the dwelling and determining that the person is not known of Sangle-Ferriere as it “allows active, effective and discrete protection of a displayed item of content or entered data” such that “the user no longer has to worry about being watched, since the system monitors this for them, and they may thus focus on other tasks” and “the risk of information leakage or pirating is decreased,” and it “makes it possible to protect an object such as a work of art in a museum, by generating an alert if an image-recording and/or -transmission device is detected in the field of view of the work and/or by masking the object behind a glazing that can be opacified on demand, such as an electrochromic glazing” and “to prevent people other than this user from gaining knowledge of the displayed content,” as taught by Sangle-Ferriere (Paragraphs 0013-0014 and 0038).
Regarding claim 11, Barnum in view of Sangle-Ferriere teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 12, Barnum in view of Sangle-Ferriere teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the condition determined is a lack of a presence of a person within the environment of interest (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0062, 0065-0066, 0068, and 0082).
Regarding claim 14, Barnum in view of Sangle-Ferriere teaches the method of claim 10, as above.
Barnum further teaches that to determine the condition an artificial intelligence algorithm utilizes the context data (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Regarding claim 15, Barnum in view of Sangle-Ferriere teaches the method of claim 14, as above.
Barnum further teaches that the one or more processors are also configured to obtain auxiliary context data from the second sensor and utilize the auxiliary context data to determine the person is not known using the artificial intelligence algorithm (Paragraphs 0050 and 0066-0068).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 07/18/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Barnum does not consider problems associated with privacy and instead merely discloses generic environmental based sensors.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as detailed above, it is unclear what constitutes “a privacy based condition” and, as such, any condition that requires a changing of the transparent medium could be considered “a privacy based condition.”
Furthermore, no special definition of “a privacy based condition” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a privacy based condition”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “a privacy based condition,” which states/seems to imply that a specific sensor must be included or a specific feature must be measured. Therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Moreover, the limitation that the controller determines a “privacy based condition” and adjusts the characteristic of the transparent medium “based on the privacy based condition to provide additional privacy within the environment of interest” is directed to an intended use of the claimed apparatus. It has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, Barnum teaches receiving data from multiple interior and exterior sensors (Paragraph 0062) and adjusting a tint of the electrochromic windows in response to the data (Paragraphs 0062-0063) which satisfies all of the structural limitations of the claim. As such, the recitation of the intended use of the apparatus does not differentiate the claim from the prior art, and Barnum anticipates the claim.
Moreover, Barnum explicitly teaches that “The interior sensors 206 may include one or more of interior light sensors, a sensor on a window to collect EC window 130 transmittance data, sensors to collect photographic data from interior of building, occupancy sensors, etc.” and “The exterior sensors 216 may include one or more of light sensors on the sides of buildings, temperature and/or humidity sensors, sensors (or cameras) to collect photographic data of cloud cover (or irradiance), irradiance sensor, rooftop pyranometer sensor (e.g., measure total global irradiance, measure diffuse horizontal irradiance (shadowed light, diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI)), calculate direct normal irradiance, include non-visible spectrum), etc.” (Paragraph 0053). Barnum’s disclosure of “cameras” or “occupancy sensors” specifically would be capable of determining a “privacy based condition” as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
For example, by sensing that it is dark outside while light inside and correspondingly darkening the electrochromic windows, the system of Barnum necessarily determines that more privacy must be provided so that someone exterior to the building cannot see the occupants of the building in a lit room and provides additional privacy by darkening the windows.
Thus, Examiner maintains that Barnum teaches a structure reading on the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are further moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Nagel, as necessitated by Applicant’s arguments and detailed above.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, filed 07/18/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 10 have been fully consid