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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 4 VA to the one or optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power.” Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of the examination, examiner interprets the limitation “the one or optically switchable windows” as “the one or more optically switchable windows.”
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 1-14 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims 1, 9, and 12 recite the claim limitation “sending no more than 24 VA to each of the one or more optically switchable windows.” The claim 12 recites the claim limitation “each controller is configured to provide at most 24 VA to the one or more optically switchable windows.” However, the specification discloses that “the voltage converter provides an output of about 24 V” in [0105] “the lower power DC supply 645 provide 95 W @ 24 V (limited to Class 2)” in [0121]. The unit VA, which is Volt-Amp, is a unit of measurement for apparent power in an electrical circuit. However, the specification describes the output of the control panel is 24 Volt, which is a unit of electric potential.
Furthermore, the specification [0063-0067], [0080-0084] and FIG. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, and 5B, discloses that a control panel and one or more window controllers are different components. Especially, the control panel is to connect a building’s power and components as disclosed in [0059], [0060], [0063], [0069], [0072], [0105], and includes “a voltage converter for stepping down the voltage…the voltage converter provides an output of about 24 V.” The control panel outputs about 24 V, which is regulated by the control panel instead of the window controller, to the trunk, which is further connected to the window controller, instead of the optically switchable windows. Thus, the specification fails to provide description in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation “VA” as “V,” and “sending, by the one or more controllers, no more than 24V to each of the one or more trunks, which is further connected to the controllers.”
The claims 1 and 9 recites the limitation “regulating the power from the at least one control panel, wherein regulating the power from the at least one control panel is by the one or more controllers; and sending, by the one or more controllers, no more than 24 VA to each of the one or more optically switchable windows.” For the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation is interpreted as the power from the control panel is regulated no more than 24 V by the controller, which is further sent to optically switchable windows. However, as discussed above, the control panel outputs about 24 V, which is regulated by a voltage converter of the control panel instead of the window controller, to the trunk, which is further connected to the window controller, instead of the optically switchable windows. Thus, the specification fails to provide description in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the purpose of the examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “sending, by the one or more controllers, no more than 24V to each of the one or more trunks, which is further connected to the controllers.”
Regarding claims 2-8, 9-11, 13, and 14, the claims 2-8, 9-11, 13, and 14 inherit the deficiency of the independent claims 1, 9, and 12.
The claim 10 recites the claim limitation “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 4 VA to the one or optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power.” The specification discloses that “the trunk lines 506 may be rated at about 4 A or less” in [0080], “The trunk lines 506 may be class 2 rated cables. In some cases the trunk lines 506 may be rated at about 4 A or less” in [0080] and “each of the eight outputs may provide electrical power at 24 V and 4 A” in [0122]. The unit, A, is the unit of electrical current, which is different from VA or the Volt-Amp. Furthermore, the specification discloses that “the trunk lines 506 may be rated at about 4 A or less” in [0080] and “a trunk line is understood to be functionally positioned between the control panel and the individual drop lines (or the window controller themselves if no drop lines are present” in [0061] and as shown in FIG. 3, 4, 5A, and 5B. Thus, the specification discloses that an electrical current rated at about 4A or less is provided to the trunk lines, which is different from “the one or more optically switchable windows.”
Since the specification [0063-0067], [0080-0084] and FIG. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5A, and 5B, discloses that a control panel and one or more window controllers are different components. Especially, the control panel is to connect a building’s power and components as disclosed in [0059], [0060], [0063], [0069], [0072], [0105], and includes “a voltage converter for stepping down the voltage…the voltage converter provides an output of about 24 V.”
Thus, the specification fails to provide description in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 4 A to one or more trunk lines after receiving up to 100 watts of power.”
The claim 11 recites the claim limitation “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 3 VA to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power.” The specification discloses that “The trunk lines 506 may be class 2 rated cables. In some cases the trunk lines 506 may be rated at about 4 A or less” in [0080] and “each of the eight outputs may provide electrical power at 24 V and 4 A” in [0122]. The unit, A, is the unit of electrical current, which is different from VA or the Volt-Amp. Furthermore, the specification only discloses that the controllers send at 4 A or less, which is different range from “no more than 3 VA.” Furthermore, the specification discloses that “the trunk lines 506 may be rated at about 4 A or less” in [0080] and “a trunk line is understood to be functionally positioned between the control panel and the individual drop lines (or the window controller themselves if no drop lines are present” in [0061] and as shown in FIG. 3, 4, 5A, and 5B. Thus, the specification discloses that an electrical current rated at about 4A or less is provided to the trunk lines, which is different from “the one or more optically switchable windows.” Thus, the specification fails to provide description in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 3 A to one or more trunk lines after receiving up to 100 watts of power.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Greer (United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0368899), hereinafter Greer.
Regarding claim 1, Greer teaches a method of controlling an optically switchable window of a system including one or more optically switchable windows, at least one control panel, and one or more controllers, the method comprising: sending up to 100 watts of power from the at least one control panel to each of the one or more controllers ([0028] “wiring architecture for powering a plurality of local window controllers that individually control the operation of a plurality of respective smart windows.” [0031] “the "building power supply" may refer to an NEC rated Class 1 power source that converts high voltage AC power to high voltage direct current (DC) power. Ultimately, the term "building power supply" may refer to any component capable of feeding Class 1 power to an input of a Class 2 power supply.” [0032] “Class 2 power supplies having wattage ratings lower than 100 W, more than ten power supplies 102 may be connected to the building power supply.” Greer teaches a system to control operation of a plurality of smart windows, that includes electrochromic devices, suspended particle devices polymer dispersed liquid crystal, photovoltaic, and photochromic devices. Each of plurality of controller receives a power of 100 Watts from the building power supply, which includes an NEC rated Class 1 power source.);
regulating the power from the at least one control panel, wherein regulating the power from the at least one control panel is by the one or more controllers; and sending no more than 24 VA to each of the one or more optically switchable windows ([0028] “wiring architecture for powering a plurality of local window controllers that individually control the operation of a plurality of respective smart windows.” [0038] “Each converter may be a relatively low voltage converter, such as 12 volts or 24 volts. Each converter may also be a relatively small power supply, rated at not more than 100 watts.” As discussed above, the claim limitation “24 VA” is interpreted as 24 V.).
Regarding claim 2, Greer further teaches wherein sending no more than 24 VA to the one or more optically switchable windows is done by the one or more controllers ([0036] “Each of the window control circuits is capable of controlling a feature (e.g., transmissivity, opacity, color) of a connected insulated glass unit 130 having one or more electrochromic devices.” [0038] “Each converter may be a relatively low voltage converter, such as 12 volts or 24 volts. Each converter may also be a relatively small power supply, rated at not more than 100 watts.”).
Regarding claim 3, Greer further teaches switching the one or more optically switchable windows from a first state to a second state ([0003] “Electrochromic devices are devices that change light (and heat) transmission properties in response to voltage applied across the device. Electrochromic devices can be fabricated which electrically switch between transparent and tinted states (where the transmitted light is colored and/or blocked).”).
Regarding claim 4, Greer further teaches wherein the first state is full clear, and the second state is full tint ([0003] “Electrochromic devices are devices that change light (and heat) transmission properties in response to voltage applied across the device. Electrochromic devices can be fabricated which electrically switch between transparent and tinted states (where the transmitted light is colored and/or blocked).”).
Regarding claim 5, Greer further teaches wherein the first state is full tint, and the second state is full clear ([0003] “Electrochromic devices are devices that change light (and heat) transmission properties in response to voltage applied across the device. Electrochromic devices can be fabricated which electrically switch between transparent and tinted states (where the transmitted light is colored and/or blocked).”).
Regarding claim 6, Greer further teaches wherein the first state is full clear, and the second state is graded tint ([0003] “Electrochromic devices are devices that change light (and heat) transmission properties in response to voltage applied across the device. Electrochromic devices can be fabricated which electrically switch between transparent and tinted states (where the transmitted light is colored and/or blocked).” [0004] “changing the coloration and, thus, the transparency of the EC device.” [0007] “The degree of transparency is controlled by the voltage applied across the liquid crystal layer.”).
Regarding claim 9, the claim 9 is the method claim of the apparatus claim 1. The claim does not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claim above. Therefore, Greer teaches all the limitations of the claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Greer teaches a system for providing power, comprising: one or more optically switchable windows; a power device; and one or more controllers, wherein: the power device is configured to provide up to 100 Watts of power to each of the one or more controllers ([0028] “wiring architecture for powering a plurality of local window controllers that individually control the operation of a plurality of respective smart windows.” [0031] “the "building power supply" may refer to an NEC rated Class 1 power source that converts high voltage AC power to high voltage direct current (DC) power. Ultimately, the term "building power supply" may refer to any component capable of feeding Class 1 power to an input of a Class 2 power supply.” [0032] “Class 2 power supplies having wattage ratings lower than 100 W, more than ten power supplies 102 may be connected to the building power supply.” Greer teaches a system to control operation of a plurality of smart windows, that includes electrochromic devices, suspended particle devices polymer dispersed liquid crystal, photovoltaic, and photochromic devices. Each of plurality of controller receives a power of 100 Watts from the building power supply, which includes an NEC rated Class 1 power source.); and
each controller is configured to provide at most 24 VA to the one or more optically switchable windows ([0028] “wiring architecture for powering a plurality of local window controllers that individually control the operation of a plurality of respective smart windows.” [0038] “Each converter may be a relatively low voltage converter, such as 12 volts or 24 volts. Each converter may also be a relatively small power supply, rated at not more than 100 watts.” As discussed above, the claim limitation “24 VA” is interpreted as 24 V.).
Regarding claim 13, Greer teaches wherein the one or optically switchable windows comprise an electrochromic device ([0002] “Electrochromic devices…are incorporated in smart windows.” [0036] “Each of the window control circuits is capable of controlling a feature (e.g., transmissivity, opacity, color) of a connected insulated glass unit 130 having one or more electrochromic devices.”).
Regarding claim 14, Greer teacher one or more cables to connect the one or more controllers to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power ([0036] “the wiring architecture 100 includes Class 2 rated power cables.” [0042] “Depending on the relative operation or power needs of the respective electrochromic devices, load balancing may be implemented to ensure than no electrical wire carries more than 100 watts of power.”).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greer (United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0368899), hereinafter Greer, in view of Burdis (United States Patent Application Publication US 7372610), hereinafter Burdis.
Regarding claim 7, Greer teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Greer does not explicitly teach a substrate; a first transparent conductive layer; a second transparent conductive layer; an electrochromic layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; and a counter electrode layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer.
Burdis teaches a substrate; a first transparent conductive layer; a second transparent conductive layer; an electrochromic layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; and a counter electrode layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (FIG. 3 “20, 30, 32, 28, 24, 26” [Col. 5 Lines 58-65] “an electrochromic layer (“EC”) 30,…an ion conductor layer (“IC”) 32,…; a counter electrode (“CE”) 28…two conductive layers ("CL") 24 and 26 which serve to apply an electrical potential to the electrochromic device. Each of the aforementioned layers are applied sequentially on a substrate 34.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Greer by incorporating the teaching of Burdis of a substrate; a first transparent conductive layer; a second transparent conductive layer; an electrochromic layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; and a counter electrode layer disposed between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer. They are all directed toward electrochromic devices. As recognized by Burdis, the structure of layers, such as a thin film deposited parallel to the electrochromic material layer, and separated by an ionically conductive layer or five sequential layers including two conductive layers, an electrochromic layer, an ion conductor layer, and an anodic complementary counter electrode layer is a well-known in the art (Background, Summary of the invention). By combining two well-known techniques, such as the electrochromic device comprising five sequential layers and controlling electrochromic devices, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Greer in view of Burdis teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 7, as discussed above.
Burdis further teaches wherein the substrate is a glass or other transparent material ([Col. 6 Lines 41-44] “substrate having suitable optical, electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties such as, for example, glass, plastic or mirror materials”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Greer teaches control system trunk line architecture of wiring system for controlling one or more smart windows and replacing higher wattage systems. However, Greer does not teach sending no more than 4 A to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power or sending no more than 3 A to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power..
Greer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2012/0268803) teaches a system for modulating transmission of light comprising an electrochromic glazing based on identifications. Greer further teaches 4 Volts and 0.6 Amps for tinting, and 3.0 V and 0.8 A for clearing based on one ID. For a different ID, Greer further teaches 3.0 Volts and 0.15 Amps for tinting and 2.0 V and 0.2 A for clearing. However, Greer does not teach sending no more than 4 A to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power or sending no more than 3 A to the one or more optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to “Objection to the Drawings” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawing Figure 5A has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. As discussed above in the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) regarding claims 1-20, the specification fails to provide description in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, especially regarding claim limitations, “regulating the power from the at least one control panel, wherein regulating the power from the at least one control panel is by the one or more controllers; and sending, by the one or more controllers, no more than 24 VA to each of the one or more optically switchable windows,” “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 4 VA to the one or optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power,” and “wherein the one or more controllers sends no more than 3 VA to the one or optically switchable windows after receiving up to 100 watts of power.”
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 HYUN SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/HYUN SOO KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights