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 § 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 1–3, 9–11, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0191221 to Shrivastava et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0081967 to Timofejevs et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Shrivastava discloses (e.g., Fig. 2B and its description, though the whole document appears relevant) a system for reusing power from a smart glass (e.g., windows 430 may be smart windows, paragraph [0062]), the system comprising: a synchronous converter configured to change a voltage of electrical power (paragraphs [0017], [0048] and [0049], where Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose that the converter is a synchronous converter, such would have been obvious based on design need and the known attendant advantages of synchronous converters, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature); a smart glass in electrical communication with the synchronous converter, and a controller (Fig. 2B, power converter, microcontroller, and EC Device may be smart window), wherein the smart glass is configured to change or maintain a tint in response to a voltage (e.g., paragraphs [0057]–[0059], also generally how electrochromic devices such as smart windows function); and the controller, wherein the controller is configured to: receive an indication that the smart glass is to change a tint, wherein the smart glass has a non-zero voltage between two electrical connections, change, using the synchronous converter, the voltage from the smart glass to a different voltage (paragraphs [0057]–[0059], [0065], and [0071], various quantized voltage levels correspond to desired tint levels).
Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose a power storage device (though such are common in electrical systems requiring power), that the smart glass is in electrical communication with the power storage device, and that the controller is configured to apply the changed voltage to the power storage device to transfer electrical energy for storage and smart glass tinting.
Timofejevs discloses smart glass, and teaches including a power storage device connected with the smart glass, where a controller is configured to apply the changed voltage to the power storage device to transfer electrical energy for storage and smart glass tinting (e.g., Claim 1, “an integrated energy source integrated within the electrochromic device for generating or storing electrical energy” and “a controller operatively coupled to the energy source and the active electrochromic layer for applying the electrical energy generated or stored by the integrated energy source to the active electrochromic layer to achieve the optical properties desired by a user”), as part of a suitable configuration for operating a smart glass that does not require external electrical energy supply (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Shrivastava to include a power storage device, where the smart glass is in electrical communication with the power storage device, and the controller is configured to apply the changed voltage to the power storage device to transfer electrical energy for storage and smart glass tinting, as suggested by Timofejevs, as part of a suitable configuration for operating a smart glass that does not require external electrical energy supply (also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shrivastava and Timofejevs would have rendered obvious wherein the synchronous converter comprises at least one of a boost converter, a buck converter, or a buck-boost converter (e.g., paragraph [0041] of Timofejevs).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shrivastava and Timofejevs would have rendered obvious a power source configured to provide a voltage to change or maintain the tint of the smart glass, wherein the controller is further configured to: control the power source to provide electrical power to the smart glass (Fig. 2B of Shrivastava).
Claims 9 and 17 recite a method and system substantially mirroring the system of Claim 1, and would have been obvious in view of Shrivastava and Timofejevs as outlined above with respect to Claim 1. Claims 10 and 18 substantially mirror Claim 2; and Claims 11 and 19 substantially mirror Claim 3, and would have been obvious in view of Shrivastava and Timofejevs as outlined above.
Claims 4–8, 12–16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava and Timofejevs, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0244608 to Brown et al.
Regarding Claim 4 (and similarly 12 and 20), the combination of Shrivastava and Timofejevs does not explicitly disclose wherein: the synchronous converter is a first synchronous converter; the system further comprises a second synchronous converter; and the controller is further configured to: change, using the second synchronous converter, a voltage of the electrical power before the electrical power is provided to the smart glass.
Brown discloses controllers for optically switchable devices (such as the smart glass of Shrivastava and Timofejevs), and teaches that the power circuit 606 may include two down converters, 668 and 670, selectively providing different voltage outputs based on system needs (paragraphs [0135–[0137] and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Shrivastava and Timofejevs such that the synchronous converter is a first synchronous converter; the system further comprises a second synchronous converter; and the controller is further configured to: change, using the second synchronous converter, a voltage of the electrical power before the electrical power is provided to the smart glass, as suggested by Brown, in order to selectively provide different voltage outputs based on system needs.
Regarding Claim 5 (and similarly Claim 13), the combination of Shrivastava, Timofejevs, and Brown would have rendered obvious wherein the second synchronous converter increases a voltage of the electrical power provided by the power source before the electrical power is provided to the smart glass (where Shrivastava, paragraph [0049], teaches that the power converter is “configured to convert a low voltage to the power requirements of [the smart glass]” and Brown teaches two converters to selectively provide different voltage outputs based on system needs, reasonably suggesting one or the other provides the electrical power, and selecting between the two based on design needs would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results without undue experimentation, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6 (and similarly Claim 14), the combination of Shrivastava, Timofejevs, and Brown would have rendered obvious wherein the second synchronous converter comprises at least one of a boost convert or a buck-boost converter (e.g., paragraph [0041] of Timofejevs).
Regarding Claim 7 (and similarly Claim 15), the combination of Shrivastava, Timofejevs, and Brown would have rendered obvious wherein the second synchronous converter decreases a voltage of the electrical power provided by the power source before the electrical power is provided to the smart glass (where Shrivastava, paragraph [0049], teaches that the power converter is “configured to convert a low voltage to the power requirements of [the smart glass]” and Brown teaches two converters to selectively provide different voltage outputs based on system needs, reasonably suggesting one or the other provides the electrical power, and selecting between the two based on design needs would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results without undue experimentation, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features; and further where increasing or decreasing the electrical power would have been obvious based on the desired next-state of the smart glass).
Regarding Claim 8 (and similarly Claim 16), the combination of Shrivastava, Timofejevs, and Brown would have rendered obvious wherein the second synchronous converter comprises at least one of a buck convert or a buck-boost converter (e.g., paragraph [0041] of Timofejevs).
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