DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 and 17-24 are pending.
Claim 16 and 25 are canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-15 and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,677,327, Nagel et al. (hereinafter Nagel) in view of Baloukas, Bill, Jean-Michel Lamarre, and Ludvik Martinu. "Active metameric security devices using an electrochromic material." Applied optics 50.9 (2010): C41-C49 (hereinafter Baloukas).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nagel teaches:
Claim 1. A system comprising: a plurality of optically switchable windows in a building; and one or more processors and memory configured to: detect, from information received from at least one of the optically switchable windows, a security-related event in at least one of the optically switchable window (Abstract – detect a security treat); and execute an action responsive to the security-related event (C8 L66 - - take action 614).
Nagel fails to clearly specify displaying a security-related images by at least one of the optically switchble windows; wherein the security-related image includes one or more of: a map of the building indicating a location of the security-related event; an indication of one or more actions underway or planned in response to the security- related event; and/or an indication of one or more responses to be made by a building occupant.
However, Baloukas teaches displaying a security-related images by at least one of the optically switchable windows; wherein the security-related image includes one or more of: a map of the building indicating a location of the security-related event; an indication of one or more actions underway or planned in response to the security- related event; and/or an indication of one or more responses to be made by a building occupant (Section 2. Concept of the EC/ISIS Device - - using interference security image structures and electrochromic materials).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to electrochromic devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above smart window system, as taught by Nagel, and incorporating the concept of displaying security-related images, as taught by Baloukas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable the combination of ISIS and EC devices in a simplified manner, as suggested by Baloukas (see conclusion).
Regarding independent claim 19, Nagel teaches:
Claim 19. A method comprising: receiving, with one or more processors and memory, information from at least one optically switchable window of a plurality of optically switchable windows in a building; and, with the one or more processors: detecting, from the information, a security-related event in at least one of the optically switchable windows (Abstract – detect a security treat); and executing an action responsive to the security-related event (C8 L66 - - take action 614).
Nagel fails to clearly specify displaying a security-related images by at least one of the optically switchble windows; wherein the security-related image includes one or more of: a map of the building indicating a location of the security-related event; an indication of one or more actions underway or planned in response to the security- related event; and/or an indication of one or more responses to be made by a building occupant.
However, Baloukas teaches displaying a security-related images by at least one of the optically switchable windows; wherein the security-related image includes one or more of: a map of the building indicating a location of the security-related event; an indication of one or more actions underway or planned in response to the security- related event; and/or an indication of one or more responses to be made by a building occupant (Section 2. Concept of the EC/ISIS Device - - using interference security image structures and electrochromic materials).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to electrochromic devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above smart window system, as taught by Nagel, and incorporating the concept of displaying security-related images, as taught by Baloukas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable the combination of ISIS and EC devices in a simplified manner, as suggested by Baloukas (see conclusion).
Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 17-24, the combination of Nagel and Baloukas teaches all the claimed limitations of the base claim, as outlined above.
Nagel further teaches:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and memory comprise a window controller, a network controller and/or a master controller (C4 L7-31).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the action responsive to the security-related event comprises one or more of the window controller, the network controller and the master controller forwarding an alert to a network operations center (C8 L58-67 and C9 L1-8 and C11 L25-34).
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the action responsive to the security-related event comprises one or more of the window controller, the network controller and the master controller causing one or more doors in the building to be locked or unlocked (C13 L1-23).
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises changing a lighting condition in the building (C9 L18-28).
6. The system of claim 5, wherein changing the lighting condition is responsive to an intruder and comprises turning on or changing a color of the lighting to indicate a location of the intruder (C12 L14-40).
7. The system of claim 6, wherein changing the lighting condition includes helping security personnel know where the location of the intruder by dimming lights in rooms distal from the location of the intruder (C9 L18-28).
8. The system of claim 5, wherein changing the lighting condition includes turning on exterior lighting of the building (C12 L14-40).
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the action comprises changing a tint in one more of the optically switchable windows (C12 L14-40).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein changing the tint in the one more of the optically switchable windows includes adjusting selected windows proximate to a damaged window to a clear state (C12 L14-40).
11. The system of claim 9, wherein changing the tint includes helping security personnel know a location of an intruder by adjusting one or more windows to a clear state (C12 L14-40).
12. The system of claim 9, wherein changing the tint includes protecting building occupants from being viewed by an intruder by adjusting one or more windows to a darkened state (C12 L51-54)
13. The system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of optically switchable windows comprise a transparent display (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the transparent display is configured to function as visual alarm indicator (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the security-related image is a spatially varying image (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more responses includes an indication the building occupant should stay in place or evacuate (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
18. The system of claim 16, wherein, when a potential intruder is detected outside the building the transparent display is used to warn the potential intruder that the potential intruder is being watched (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors and memory comprise a window controller, a network controller and/or a master controller (C4 L7-31).
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the action responsive to the security-related event comprises one or more of the window controller, the network controller and the master controller forwarding an alert to a network operations center, causing one or more doors in the building to be locked or unlocked (C13 L1-23), changing a lighting condition in the building, and/or changing a tint in one more of the optically switchable windows (C12 L14-40).
22. The method of claim 19, wherein one or more of the plurality of optically switchable windows comprise a transparent display (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the transparent display is configured to function as visual alarm indicator (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
24. The method of claim 23, wherein the security-related image is a spatially varying image (C13 L1-23 - - using a window with maximum transmissivity serves as a transparent display).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lehman et al., US Patent No. 6,150,943 – relates to generating a fire evacuation path.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights