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 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s amendments to claim 10, the amendment is not supported in the specification. P.0085 disclose that the photosensor circuit may consume less power than the visible light sensing circuit and in P.0086 that the image processing of the visible light sensor may consume a greater amount of power than other times. However, the specification does not support how or why the photosensor circuit is configured to consume less power than the visible light sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that image processing requires less power than mere intensity measurement, the obvious rejection relies upon that fact, but the wording of the claim raises the question as to if there is special structure or other intentions that “configure” the phototransistor to consume a certain amount. And the specification fails to disclose these power comparisons are during any particular time.
Applicant argues that even though Casey discloses the visible light sensing circuit and Veskovic discloses the photosensing circuit, it would not be obvious to combine them into enabling the visible light sensing circuit when the illuminance signal indicates a likelihood of detecting the glare condition or processing based on the illuminance signal indicating the likelihood of detecting the glare condition. In Casey, a user must input a trigger P.0060 to begin the image detection and analysis that ultimately locates a glare in the room. The image detectors of Casey take more energy and time than photosensors of Veskovic. Veskovic only does a photosensing of the room, measuring light intensity, in order to determine glare. This results in missing or misinterpreting certain intensities as glare since sometimes glare condition can be outside a building but not affecting the interior (P.0006). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the importance of combining the teachings from both Casey and Veskovic to get the best of both types of analysis. The photosensing of Veskovic is simple and fast and can be performed often. It can then trigger the image sensing of Casey when there is a likelihood of success at finding glare in order to minimize the false positives (or noise as Casey calls it) of glare outside the building from a bright day that isn’t affecting the interior. The image sensing of Casey would be time and energy intensive if performed too often and requires manual input. The triggering from Veskovic would reduce the manual input, allowing imaging to be triggered only when the photosensing suspects glare.
It should be noted that the combination of references does not require bodily incorporation but rather prior art should be considered as a whole as to what it teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art. Combining these two teachings, both with a focus on sensing glare in a office setting, would result in a more accurate and less expensive combination.
The rejection remains as previously presented.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. With respect to claim 10, the limitation that the photo sensing circuit is configured to consume less power during generation of the illuminance signal than the visible light sensing circuit during recording of the at least one image lacks written description. P.0085 disclose that the photosensor circuit may consume less power than the visible light sensing circuit consumes but fails to disclose any particular action or timing of this power comparison. P.0086 discloses that the image processing may consume a greater amount of power than during other times but does not compare it to the phototransistor. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0252035 in view of Veskovic U.S. Patent #7,950,827.
With respect to claim 2, Casey discloses a visible light sensor configured for glare detection comprising:
A visible light sensing circuit configured to record at least one image to detect a glare condition (P.0053, second visible light sensor 182)
A control circuit configured to enable the visible light sensing circuit to record the at least one image (P.0053)
Process the at least one image recorded by the visible light sensing circuit to detect the glare condition (P.0053)
However, Casey fails to disclose enabling and processing the image based on an illuminance signal.
Veskovic discloses a window treatment for controlling glare comprising:
A photo sensing circuit configured to generate an illuminance signal (Col.10, l 21-26, 65-67, photosensors 145)
A control circuit configured to receive the illuminance signal from the photo sensing circuit (Col.10, l 21-22, 65-67, control circuit = central processor)
Determining the likelihood of detecting the glare condition based on the illuminance signals (Col.16, l 65- Col.17, l 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to first use the illuminance signals of Veskovic to determine if glare is a potential problem before doing Casey’s image analysis to locate the glare since image analysis is more time and energy intensive, so preventing unnecessary analyses would save both. Casey determines glare should be measured by manual input (P.0060). It has been held in the art that automating a known manual step is within ordinary skill. The illuminance signals of Veskovic would provide automatic triggering of the image analysis of Casey, saving time and money.
With respect to claim 11 and 17, Casey discloses a visible light sensor for glare detection method comprising:
Enabling a visible light sensing circuit to record at least one image when a user triggers a measurement (P.0060, P.0053)
Processing the at least one image recorded by the visible light sensing circuit to detect the glare condition (P.0053)
However, Casey fails to disclose generating, via a photo sensing circuit, an illuminance signal and enabling and processing the image based on an illuminance signal.
Veskovic discloses a window treatment for controlling glare comprising:
Generating an illuminance signal (Col.10, l 21-26, 65-67, photosensors 145)
Determining the likelihood of detecting the glare condition based on the illuminance signals (Col.16, l 65- Col.17, l 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to first use the illuminance signals of Veskovic to determine if glare is a potential problem before doing Casey’s image analysis to locate the glare since image analysis is more time and energy intensive, so preventing unnecessary analyses would save both. Casey determines glare should be measured by manual input (P.0060). It has been held in the art that automating a known manual step is within ordinary skill. The illuminance signals of Veskovic would provide automatic triggering of the image analysis of Casey, saving time and money.
With respect to claim 3, 4, 12, 13, 18, and 19, Casey in view of Veskovic discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 2, 11 and 17 above. However, Casey fails to disclose the control circuit being configured to determine a preset illuminance value based on the illuminance signal and to take an image when the illuminance value exceeds a threshold.
Veskovic discloses:
The control circuit configured to determine a preset illuminance value based on the illuminance signal (Col.16, l 65-67, preset illuminance value = “dead-band”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a preset illuminance value, or expected value, for the photosensors based on the photosensors in order to create a threshold for change as in Veskovic applied to the image analysis of Casey for the reasons described above, since having a threshold for illuminance values measured prior to image analysis will result in fewer images collected and analyzed, saving time and energy.
With respect to claim 5, 6, 14, 15, 20, and 21, Casey in view of Veskovic discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 17 above. In addition, Casey discloses:
The visible light sensing circuit is configured to periodically record images (P.0040)
However, Casey fails to disclose that the recording of images is based on the illuminance signal and that the images are not recorded when the illuminance does not indicate the likelihood of glare. This has been addressed above with respect to claim 2 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to record images only when the illuminance of Veskovic indicates a necessity to do in order to save time and energy.
With respect to claim 7 and 16, Casey in view of Veskovic discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 2 and 11 above. In addition, Casey discloses:
The control circuit is configured to process/ Processing the plurality of images recorded by the visible light sensing circuit to detect the glare condition at a processing frequency (P.0067)
With respect to claim 10, Casey in view of Veskovic discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 2 above. However, Casey and Veskovic are silent with respect to the power efficiency of the photo sensing circuit compared to the visible light sensing circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as a design effective variable to select a power efficiency for each component in a device based on costs and priorities. One of ordinary skill would recognize that selecting one circuit to consume less power than another depends on many variables and manners in which those circuits are used and it would be within that skill to select which one consumes less power based on the design choices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights