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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1–24 in the reply filed on November 4, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being nonelected, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (e.g., paragraphs [0012]–[0013] of the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0035], "space 160" is referenced twice, however, in Fig. 3, which is being described, the space is marked with label 360; in paragraph [0036], "EC coating 335" should likely be "EC coating 330" consistent with the remainder of the specification, element 335 is described as second surface 335 of the glass pane 320.
Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any further errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Regarding Claim 24, there is no antecedent basis for "the power generating unit". Claim 24 may be intended to depend from Claim 23, which introduces a power generating unit; however, in that case, there would be no antecedent basis for "the wireless communications system", because that element is introduced in Claim 21, and not in Claim 23.
Accordingly, it is unclear what is specifically being claimed in Claim 24. For purposes of examination, Claim 24 will be understood to include the features from both Claims 21 and 23.
Appropriate clarification and correction are 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0040789 to Rozbicki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Rozbicki discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 3–6 and their description, though the whole document appears relevant) an insulated glass unit (e.g., illustrated in Fig. 3D, for example) comprising: a first window pane 305 comprising an electrochromic coating 347; a second window pane 315 spaced away from the first window pane and comprising: a plurality of antennas adapted to receive RF signals (e.g., receiver 362/600 includes one or more antenna 602, paragraph [0105] and Fig. 6); a rectifying circuit adapted to convert the RF signals received by the plurality of planar antennas to a DC power (paragraph [0105], receiver 362/600 includes “a rectifying circuit 603, which converts the alternating current voltage to a direct current voltage [which] is then passed to a power converter 604, such as a DC-DC converter that is used to provide a constant voltage output”); and a controller (e.g., paragraphs [0092] and [0105]–[0106], microcontroller 605, Fig. 6).
Rozbicki discusses how the received power is used to operate the window controller and is “used to power the EC device's transitions and/or maintain optical states” (paragraph [0064), but does not appear to explicitly state that the transitions or optical states refer to opacity, that is, Rozbicki does not explicitly disclose that the controller is “adapted to change an opacity of the electrochromic coating from the converted DC power.”
However, Rozbicki teaches that generally, insulated glass units “control of the amount of light and heat passing through the windows. . . between a transparent ‘clear or bleached’ state and a darkened (light and/or heat blocking) state using small potentials and can maintain optical states with even less power” (paragraphs [0044]–[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Rozbicki, as described with reference to Figs. 3 and 6, such that the controller is adapted to change an opacity of the electrochromic coating from the converted DC power, based on the general background information also taught in Rozbicki, as a suitable use for the device (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas are disposed on a first surface of the second window pane exposed to an interior of a room in which the insulated glass unit is adapted to be installed (e.g., paragraph [0150], antenna may be formed on surface S4, where S4 is the interior surface, paragraph [0080]), and wherein the rectifying circuit and the controller are disposed on a second surface of the second window pane (e.g., Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 3, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas, the rectifying circuit and the controller are disposed on a surface of the second window pane within a space separating the first window pane from the second window pane (e.g., Fig. 3D, where each are part of receiver 362, also Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas are formed using a transparent conductive metal layer (e.g., paragraph [0150], antenna array may be etched ITO, where ITO is a well-known conductive metal layer).
Regarding Claim 5, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the rectifying circuit and the controller are disposed in a frame of the insulated glass unit (e.g., embodiment of Fig. 3C, where receiver 360 is formed in seal 330, and receiver may include the rectifying circuit and controller, paragraphs [0105]–[0106]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas are disposed in the frame of the insulated glass unit (e.g., embodiment of Fig. 3C, where receiver 360 is formed in seal 330, and receiver may include the antennas).
Regarding Claim 7, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas deliver the received RF signals to the rectifying circuit via one or more thru-glass conductors (“the wiring 357 end connector to at least one of the bus bars 353 may be a piercing connector that is pushed through the foam spacer body or e.g., through an aperture formed in a plastic spacer, in order to establish electrical communication with the bus bar 353,” paragraph [0078], also paragraph [0080], suggesting the wiring passing through intervening layers, such as a thru-glass conductor).
Regarding Claim 8, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of antennas deliver the received RF signals to the rectifying circuit via an electromagnetic coupler (e.g., paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious one or more sensors selected from a group consisting of light sensor, humidity sensor, temperature sensor, vibration sensor, ultrasonic transducer, motion sensor, and occupancy sensor (e.g., paragraph [0105], receiver 600 may be connected to one or more sensors; including photosensors and temperature sensors, paragraph [0107]).
Regarding Claims 11–19, Claims 11–19 recite generically methods substantially tracking the apparatuses recited in Claims 1–9 (with the first and second window panes swapped to be the second and first window panes), and would have been obvious in view of Rozbicki for similar reasons as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 21, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious a wireless communications system adapted to establish a communications link with the Internet or a building management system (e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0090]–[0098], describing a room with many insulated glass units 406, controlled by a master controller, and teaching “a wall unit that has a user interface for controlling the tint state of the EC window,” where integrating a wall unit into a building management system or a communications link with the Internet for greater control and a single point of control for multiple devices would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, requiring no undue experimentation, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 22, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the controller is adapted to change the opacity of the electrochromic coating in accordance with data received by the wireless communications system (where the wall unit is configured to control the tint state, and automating that manual step, such as through the internet or other wireless communication system, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, requiring no undue experimentation, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 23, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious a power generating unit adapted to generate the RF signals received by the plurality of planar antennas (e.g., RF transmitter 500, Fig. 5, including antennas 502 and power source 506, paragraphs [0099]–[0104]).
Regarding Claim 24, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious wherein the controller is adapted to change the opacity of the electrochromic coating in accordance with data transmitted from the power generating unit to the wireless communications system (where adjusting the opacity based on data that is transmitted is a standard use of transmitted data; also Fig. 4 and its description, where the individual windows may be controlled based on sent data).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki in view of CN 205392128 U to E et al. (translation provided with this Office action).
Regarding Claim 10, Rozbicki would have rendered obvious a humidity reduction system disposed within a space separating the first window pane from the second window, the humidity reduction system comprising: a desiccant adapted to absorb air molecules (e.g., paragraph [0074]).
However, Rozbicki does not explicitly disclose cathode and anode terminals receiving electrical signal from the controller to perform electrolysis of the air molecules absorbed in the desiccant.
E discloses a constant humidity machine, and teaches using cathode and anode terminals to achieve electrolytic dehumidification in order to reduce the need to replace the desiccant through use (e.g., paragraphs [0020] and [0033] of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Rozbicki to include cathode and anode terminals receiving electrical signal from the controller to perform electrolysis of the air molecules absorbed in the desiccant, as suggested by E, in order to reduce the need to replace the desiccant during use.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites generally a method substantially tracking the apparatus recited in Claim 10 (with the first and second window panes swapped to be the second and first window panes), and would have been obvious in view of Rozbicki for similar reasons as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871