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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument that, “the cited references at least fail to teach or suggest presenting a user interface that presents a plurality of selectable options that include two or more of: a factory reset, a limit reset, a vane reset, an automation reset, a view reset, or an ownership transfer of an architectural structure covering” (Remarks, p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner points out that there is no support for the limitation “two or more”. The Specification is replete with support for the prior limitation of “at least one” and “one or more”, but there is nothing in Specification that requires “two or more” options. The Examiner has introduced US PG Pub. No. 2016/0127530 to Mullet et al. that explicitly shows that there are multiple options for the user to select including a factory reset and setting shade position which is analogous to “a vane reset”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Response to Amendment
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 24 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-23 have been amended.
Claim 25 has been added.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12-23, and 25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations require “two or more” [actions] to be displayed in the user interface in each of the aforementioned claims. There is no mention of two or more actions in the Specification. The Specification requires “one or more actions” (Specification, [0020]). Additionally, the claims as original presented included 15 instances of “one or more actions”. It is clear that the Specification intends for the limitation to be “one or more actions” no two or more actions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 12-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2015/0237071 to Maher et al. (hereinafter Maher) in view of US PG Pub. No. 2008/0283621 to Quirino et al. (hereinafter Quirino) in view US PG Pub. No. 2007/0214356 to Song et al. (hereinafter Song) in view of US PG Pub. No. 2016/0127530 to Mullet et al (hereinafter Mullet).
As to claims 1, 9, and 19, Maher teaches:
A processor (Maher, [0032]).
A memory storing computer executable instructions that, upon execution by the processor (Maher, [0032]), configured the architectural structure covering to:
i. Receive user interaction data, the user interaction data generated upon a user interaction with a button (user interacts with IoT network through a smartphone interface) (Maher, [0100]).
Maher teaches controlling windows, for example, or other appliance (Maher, [0128]) but does not explicitly recite that the other appliance could be an architectural structure covering. However, in an analogous art, Quirino teaches interaction with an architectural structure covering (window covering device) (Quirino, [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been modified to implement the management of an IoT network of Maher with the window covering device of Quirino in order to more efficiently control the environment of the space with the window covering device as suggested by Quirino (Quirino, [0002-0003]).
Maher does not expressly mention a physical reset button on the architectural structure covering. However, in an analogous art, Song teaches a reset button on the architectural structure covering (pushing reset button on the blinds) (Song, [0047]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been modified to implement the management of an IoT network of Maher as modified with the use of a reset button on the device of Song in order to protect devices as suggested by Song (Song, [0005]).
Maher as modified further teaches:
ii. Send, upon receipt of the user interaction data, reset data to a user device, the reset data causing the user device to present a user interface that corresponds to a reset mode of the architectural structure covering (during reset mode, the thing sends data about the thing to the user’s smartphone) (Maher, [0104]).
Maher as modified using a mobile device to control the IoT network (Maher, [0100]) but does not expressly mention the layout of the of the options screen. However, in an analogous art, Mullet teaches the user interface presenting a plurality of selectable options corresponding to a plurality of actions provided by the reset mode (reset screen includes options for at least a factory reset and setting/resetting of window covering position) (Mullet, fig. 7 and [0065-0067]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been modified to implement the management of an IoT network of Maher as modified with the multiple reset options displayed in a GUI of Mullet in order to “provide a convenient and easy to use system and method of controlling motorized window shades” as suggested by Mullet (Mullet, [0014]).
Maher as modified further teaches:
iii. Receive, from the user device, a reset instruction indicating at least one action of the plurality of actions provided by the reset mode, the reset instruction received based on a selection via the user interface at least one selectable option of the plurality of selectable options(data sent from the thing to the smartphone for the user to select options) (Maher, [0104] and Mullet, fig. 7 and [0065-0067] ).
iv. Perform the one or more actions of the architectural structure covering based on the reset instruction (factory reset) (Song, [0047]).
v. Wherein the plurality of actions of the architectural structure covering comprise two or more of: a factory reset, a limit reset, a vane reset, an automation reset, a view reset, or an ownership transfer (reset screen includes options for at least a factory reset and setting/resetting of window covering position) (Mullet, fig. 7 and [0065-0067]).
As to claim 2, Maher as modified teaches the reset data is sent in a broadcast signal and comprises an identifier of the architectural structure covering (Maher, [0105]).
As to claim 4, Maher as modified teaches the view reset architectural structure covering is a view through position reset that enables or disables a blackout shade of the architectural structure covering (the covering can be in a light blocking position or a light entering position) (Quirino, [0029]).
As to claim 5 as best understood, Maher as modified teaches wherein the architectural structure covering is installed in an edifice that comprises a set of architectural structure coverings, wherein the execution of the computer executable instructions further configures the architectural structure covering to:
Send, to the user device, a security key associated with the set of architectural structure coverings (security keys are generated and shared amongst the group of window coverings and the smartphone) (Maher, [0106]).
Terminate a first connection with the user device and receive, from the user device or from another user device, a connection request after the first connection is terminated, the connection request including the security key or a hash of the security key, the user device and the other user device associated with a same user account (binding of devices) (Song, [0024]).
Validate the security key or the hash of the security key (binding of devices) (Song, [0024]).
Establish a second connection with the user device or the other user device (accessing system) (Maher, [0163]).
As to claim 6, Maher as modified teaches the architectural structure covering is installed in an edifice that comprises a set of architectural structure coverings, and wherein the execution of the computer executable instructions further configures the architectural structure covering to:
a. Receive, from the user device, a security key associated with the set of architectural structure coverings (keys are generated and distributed to the smartphone and the things for at least encrypting/decrypting messages) (Maher, [0106]).
b. Store, in the memory, the security key (keys are generated and distributed to the smartphone and the things for at least encrypting/decrypting messages) (Maher, [0106]).
As to claim 12, Maher as modified teaches the user device is associated with a user account, and wherein the reset instruction indicates that the architectural structure covering is to replace a security key with a new security key, the new security key suable to connect the architectural structure covering with one or more user devices associated with the user account (data sent from the thing to the smartphone for the user to select options including the generation of a new key) (Maher, [0104-0106]).
As to claim 13, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to the limitations of claims 5, 6, and 17. The only difference is that the limitations claim 13 are from the opposite point of view. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in similar fashion to claims 5, 6, and 17 above.
As to claim 14, Maher as modified teaches send the security key to at least one of: a server that manages a user account or another user device, the user device and the other user device associated with the user account (trusted service monitors information for the EPN) (Maher, [0107).
As to claim 15, Maher as modified teaches:
a. Send, to another architectural structure covering of the set of architectural structure coverings, another connection request after the first connection is terminated, the other connection request including the security key or the hash of the security key (groups of things are created and it is obvious that connecting to another thing in the network would work the same way connecting to the initial thing and are rejected above) (Maher, 0110]).
b. Establish a third connection with the other architectural structure covering based on a validation of the security key or the hash by the other architectural structure covering (groups of things are created and it is obvious that connecting to another thing in the network would work the same way connecting to the initial thing and are rejected above) (Maher, 0110]).
As to claim 16, Maher as modified teaches send, to the architectural structure covering, a security key, wherein the security key is generated by the user device or is received from a server that manages a user account associated with the user device, and wherein the security key is associated with the set of architectural structure coverings (security keys are generated and shared amongst the group of window coverings and the smartphone) (Maher, [0106]).
As to claim 17, Maher as modified teaches:
Receive, from the user device or from another user device, a connection request that includes the security key or a hash of the security key, the user device and the other user device associated with a same user account (accessing system) (Maher, [0163]).
Validate the security key or the hash of the security key (Song, [0024]).
Establish a second connection with the user device or the other user device (accessing system) (Maher, [0163]).
As to claim 18, Maher as modified teaches the security key is sent from the server to the other architectural structure covering (keys are generated and distributed to the smartphone and the things for at least encrypting/decrypting messages) (Maher, [0106]).
As to claim 22, Maher as modified teaches:
a. The architectural structure covering is installed in an edifice that comprises a set of architectural structure coverings, each architectural structure covering of the set of architectural structure coverings associated with another via a user account and comprising a processor and a memory storing executable instructions (groups of things are created and it is obvious that connecting to another thing in the network would work the same way connecting to the initial thing and are rejected above) (Maher, 0110]).
b. Upon entry into the reset mode by a respective one architectural structure covering of the set of architectural structure coverings, the reset instruction is automatically sent from the user device to a server or a local hub that sends the reset instruction to each architectural structure covering of the set of architectural structure coverings (the explicit private network (EPN) uses hubs for network communications between the things in the EPN and with entities outside the EPN) (Maher, at least [0036]).
c. The execution of the computer executable instructions configure the set of architectural structure coverings to perform the at least one action (Maher, [0232]).
As to claim 23, Maher as modified teaches performing at least one action based on the reset instruction includes sending an operation control signal to an architectural structure covering controller having an action determiner and a position determiner, the action determiner and the position determiner utilizing the operational control signal to selectively activate a motor controller to control a motor of the architectural structure covering (actuators control the position of the window covering according to the executed instructions) (Quirino, [0029]).
As to claim 25, Maher as modified teaches the architectural structure covering includes a shade panel having a plurality of vanes extending between a front panel and a back panel such that the plurality of vanes are spaced apart vertically from one another along a vertical height of the shade panel, wherein the two or more of the plurality of actions of the architectural structure covering comprises the vane reset, and wherein the vane reset specifies an amount to open or close the plurality of vanes (pleated or honeycomb shades are contemplated with the ability to preset positions for the shade) (Mullet, [0065-0067 and 0074] and figs. 5 and 7).
Claims 3 and 21 and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2015/0237071 to Maher et al. (hereinafter Maher) in view of US PG Pub. No. 2008/0283621 to Quirino et al. (hereinafter Quirino) in view US PG Pub. No. 2007/0214356 to Song et al. (hereinafter Song) in view of US PG Pub. No. 2016/0127530 to Mullet et al (hereinafter Mullet)as applied to claim 1 and claim 19 respectively above, and further in view of US PG Pub. No. 2019/0333059 to Fallah et al. (hereinafter Fallah).
As to claims 3 and 20, Maher as modified teaches the user interaction comprises a push and hold of the button (pushing reset button on the device) (Song, [0047]). Maher as modified does not expressly mention a expiration time to complete execution. However, in an analogous art, Fallah teaches wherein the execution of the computer executable instructions further configure the architectural structure covering to start a predefined time based on the user interaction, wherein the reset instruction is received prior to an expiration of the predefined timer (actions must be carried out before predetermined time expires (timestamp)) (Fallah, [0091]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been modified to implement the management of an IoT network of Maher as modified with the execution of software within a predetermined time of Fallah in order to ensure that the software is valid as suggested by Fallah (Fallah, [0091]).
As to claim 21, Maher as modified does not expressly mention a expiration time to complete execution. However, in an analogous art, Fallah teaches if the architectural structure covering determines the predetermined timer has expired prior to receipt of the reset instruction, the execution of the computer executable instructions further configure the architectural structure covering to exit the reset mode without receiving the reset instruction and without performing the one or more actions based on the reset instruction (actions must be carried out before predetermined time expires (timestamp) or the process has to be reinitiated) (Fallah, [0091]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been modified to implement the management of an IoT network of Maher as modified with the execution of software within a predetermined time of Fallah in order to ensure that the software is valid as suggested by Fallah (Fallah, [0091]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/WILLIAM S POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496