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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrivastava et al. U.S. Patent Application 2020/0041963 (hereinafter “Shrivastava”).
Regarding claim 1, Shrivastava teaches a system (refer to room 500)(fig.5)(refer also to [0035], [0138]-[0140], claim 1 and figures 1B and 1D), comprising: one or more sensors (refer to sensor 510)(fig.5)(refer also to [0035], [0138]-[0140], claim 1 and figures 1B and 1D); one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices (refer to tintable window 505)(fig.5)(refer to EC devices 400)(fig.1D)(refer also to [0040] and [0140]); and a processor (refer to controller 450)(fig.5)(refer to controllers 1110 and master window controller 1102)(fig.1D) coupled to the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices and the one or more sensors (refer to [0109]), wherein the processor is configured to: receive a sensor failure signal from the one or more sensors (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]), wherein the sensor failure signal indicates the one or more sensors are not working (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]); and adjust one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the received sensor failure signal (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control the transmission state of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices with the adjusted control algorithms (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive an active sensor signal, wherein the active sensor signal indicates the one or more sensors are working (refer to [0005] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 15, Shrivastava teaches a method for controlling one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices (refer to tintable window 505)(fig.5)(refer to EC devices 400)(fig.1D)(refer also to [0005], [0040], and [0140]), comprising: receiving a sensor failure signal (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]) from one or more sensors (refer to sensor 510)(fig.5)(refer also to [0035], [0138]-[0140], claim 1 and figures 1B and 1D), wherein the sensor failure signal indicates the one or more sensors are not working (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]), and wherein receiving the sensor failure signal is performed by a processor (refer to controller 450)(fig.5)(refer to controllers 1110 and master window controller 1102)(fig.1D) connected to the one or more sensors (implicit); adjusting one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the received sensor failure signal (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]); and sending a first command to the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices to change a transmission state of at least one of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the adjusted one or more control algorithms (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Shrivastava teaches the method for controlling the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices of claim 15, further comprising receiving data from the one or more sensors after the first command is sent (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Shrivastava teaches the method for controlling the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices of claim 17, further comprising adjusting a second time the one or more control algorithms after the data from the one or more sensors is received (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]) to run the one or more control algorithms based on both calculated data and measured data from the one or more sensors (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Shrivastava teaches the method for controlling the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices of claim 18, sending a second command to the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices to change the transmission state of all of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the second adjusted one or more control algorithms (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Shrivastava teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (refer to claim 28) containing a program of instructions for controlling one or more non-light-emitting, variable transmission devices (refer to tintable window 505)(fig.5)(refer to EC devices 400)(fig.1D)(refer also to [0005], [0040], and [0140]), execution of which by a processor causes the steps (refer to claim 28) of: receiving a sensor failure signal (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]) from one or more sensors (refer to sensor 510)(fig.5)(refer also to [0035], [0138]-[0140], claim 1 and figures 1B and 1D), wherein the sensor failure signal indicates the one or more sensors are not working (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]), and wherein receiving the sensor failure signal is performed by a processor (refer to controller 450)(fig.5)(refer to controllers 1110 and master window controller 1102)(fig.1D) connected to the one or more sensors (implicit); adjusting one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the received sensor failure signal (refer to [0005] and [0036]-[0037]); and sending a first command to the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices to change a transmission state of all of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices based on the received sensor failure signal (implicit)(refer to [0005], [0032], [0036]-[0037], and [0040]).
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.
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) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Brown et al. U.S. Patent Application 2016/0154290 (hereinafter “Brown”).
Regarding claim 2, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1; however, Shrivastava does not teach wherein adjusting the one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprising running the algorithm on calculated data and omitting measured data from the one or more sensors. However, Brown teaches wherein adjusting the one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprising running the algorithm on calculated data and omitting measured data from the one or more sensors (refer to [0240]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrivastava to include omitting measured data from the failed sensor of Brown to provide the advantage of preventing nuisance operation of the variable transmission device due to the abnormal sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Shrivastava teaches the method for controlling the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices of claim 15; however, Shrivastava does not teach wherein adjusting the one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprising running the algorithm on calculated data and omitting measured data from the one or more sensors. However, Brown teaches wherein adjusting the one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprising running the algorithm on calculated data and omitting measured data from the one or more sensors (refer to [0240]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shrivastava to include omitting measured data from the failed sensor of Brown to provide the advantage of preventing nuisance operation of the variable transmission device due to the abnormal sensor.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shrivastava et al. U.S. Patent Application 2022/0159077 (hereinafter “Shrivastava2”).
Regarding claim 4, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1; however, Shrivastava does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize the one or more control algorithms during normal operation before receiving a sensor failure signal from the one or more sensors. However, Shrivastava2 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize the one or more control algorithms during normal operation before receiving a sensor failure signal from the one or more sensors (refer to [0012], [0015]-[0017], [0113], [0114], and [0164]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrivastava to include the prioritization of Shrivastava2 to provide the advantage of resolving conflicting instructions.
Regarding claim 5, Shrivastava and Shrivastava2 teach the system of claim 4, wherein adjusting the one or more control algorithms used to control the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprises utilizing the prioritization of the one or more control algorithms created during normal operations (refer to Shrivastava2 [0012], [0015]-[0017], [0113], [0114], and [0164]).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bass et al. U.S. Patent Application 2016/0202588 (hereinafter “Bass”).
Regarding claim 7, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1; however, Shrivastava does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether a time-out frame is reached. However, Bass teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether a time-out frame is reached (refer to [0215]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrivastava to include the time-out frame of Bass to provide the advantage of correcting for undesired faradaic losses (refer to Bass [0215])
Regarding claim 8, Shrivastava and Bass teach the system of claim 7, wherein the time-out frame is between 24 hours and 48 hours (refer to Bass [0215]).
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. U.S. Patent Application 2020/0209701 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 9, Shrivastava teaches the system of claim 1, however Shrivastava does not teach wherein each of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprises: a substrate; a first transparent conductive layer; a second transparent conductive layer; a cathodic electrochemical layer between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; and an anodic electrochemical layer between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer. However, Wang teaches wherein each of the one or more non-light emitting, variable transmission devices comprises: a substrate (refer to claim 1); a first transparent conductive layer (refer to claim 1); a second transparent conductive layer (refer to claim 1); a cathodic electrochemical layer (refer to claim 1) between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (refer to claim 1); and an anodic electrochemical layer (refer to claim 1) between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (refer to claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrivastava to include the non-light emitting, variable transmission device of Wang to provide the advantage of using a common well-known design for an electrochemical device.
Regarding claim 10, Shrivastava and Wang teach the system of claim 9, wherein each of the one or more electrochromic devices further comprises an ion conducting layer (refer to Wang claim 10) between the cathodic electrochemical layer and the anodic electrochemical layer (refer to Wang claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Shrivastava and Wang teach the system of claim 10, wherein the ion-conducting layer comprises lithium, sodium, hydrogen, deuterium, potassium, calcium, barium, strontium, magnesium, oxidized lithium, Li2WO4, tungsten, nickel, lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium peroxide, or any combination thereof (refer to Wang claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, Shrivastava and Wang teach the system of claim 9, wherein the cathodic electrochemical layer comprises WO3, V2O5, MoO3, Nb2O5, TiO2, CuO, Ni2O3, NiO, Ir2O3, Cr2O3, Co2O3, Mn2O3, mixed oxides (e.g., W-Mo oxide, W-V oxide), lithium, aluminum, zirconium, phosphorus, nitrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, astatine, boron, a borate with or without lithium, a tantalum oxide with or without lithium, a lanthanide-based material with or without lithium, another lithium-based ceramic material, or any combination thereof (refer to Wang claims 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 13, Shrivastava and Wang teach the system of claim 9, wherein the first transparent conductive layer comprises indium oxide, indium tin oxide, doped indium oxide, tin oxide, doped tin oxide, zinc oxide, doped zinc oxide, ruthenium oxide, doped ruthenium oxide, silver, gold, copper, aluminum, and any combination thereof (refer to Wang claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, Shrivastava and Wang teach the system of claim 9, wherein the second transparent conductive layer comprises indium oxide, indium tin oxide, doped indium oxide, tin oxide, doped tin oxide, zinc oxide, doped zinc oxide, ruthenium oxide, doped ruthenium oxide and any combination thereof (refer to Wang claim 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838