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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the exact structure shown of the pivot rods 7505 and 7110 and hembar 7130 of figs. 10-12, nor the depicted structure of angled block 7405 of fig. 13, nor the depicted structure of elements 7505 (pushing rod) and 7510 (cross rod) of fig. 14.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification dated 2/20/2026 is accepted.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the one or more motors that adjust”, but should recite “the one or more motors adjust”, which is proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches a system comprising:
a controller (310) that controls one or more motors (308);
the one or more motors adjust a photovoltaic (PV) film system (paragraph 79, the PV components) and a window shade system (102 itself);
wherein the PV film system includes a PV material having a first thickness (see fig. 6, it is well known that components have a “thickness”),
wherein the window shade system having a window shade material having a second thickness (fig. 2);
the PV film system generates solar power for the controller (paragraphs 81-82, the power goes to the battery for the controller to be able to control the motor); and
a storage device (306) that interfaces with the controller (see fig. 3), wherein the storage device stores the solar power.
Gross does not teach a geared interface that interfaces the PV film system and the window shade system, wherein the geared interface includes a first gear on the PV film system interfacing with a second gear on the window shade system, and wherein the first gear has a first number of teeth based on the first thickness of the PV material, and wherein the second gear has a second number of teeth based on the second thickness of the window shade material.
Kim teaches a geared interface configured to interface two window shade systems (fig. 4), wherein the geared interface includes a first gear on one of the window shade system interfacing with a second gear on a second of the two window shade system (see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Gross with the teachings of Kim so that there is a separate window shade system and a geared interface that interfaces the PV film system and the new window shade system, wherein the geared interface includes a first gear on the PV film system interfacing with a second gear on the window shade system. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a single motor controlling a shade and a PV system, allowing a user more control in shading a room.
Brunk teaches a window shade system with different number of gear teeth and gear ratios based on a dimension of a window shade material (paragraph 204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that wherein the first gear has a first number of teeth based on the first thickness of the PV material, and wherein the second gear has a second number of teeth based on the second thickness of the window shade material. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of optimizing movement of the window shade and the PV material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gross teaches that each of the one or more motors are configured for providing an adjustment to the window shade system, such that the adjustment to the window shade system causes an adjustment to the PV film system via the geared interface (the examiner notes that the modification above adds a window shade system and the claimed gear interface).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gross teaches that the geared interface includes a third gear (55 from Kim) that interfaces with the first gear on the PV film system and the second gear on the window shade system (after the modification above the gear interface and window shade system are added).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gross does not explicitly teach that the PV film material and the window shade material share a hembar.
Kim further teaches two window shades that share a hembar (40, see fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross with teachings of Kim so that the PV film material and the window shade material share a hembar. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the added hembar weight keeping the shade and the PV film taught while in use, allowing for better solar capturing.
Regarding claim 10, modified Gross teaches that an inside side of the PV film material is configured to receive at least one of artificial light or solar rays reflected from the window shade material (capable of).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gross teaches that the controller interfaces with the PV film system (as is shown in the diagram on fig. 3 of Gross).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917) as applied above, and further in view of Kim (US 20170359016, hereinafter known as Kim ‘016).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gross does not teach a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) charge controller.
Kim ‘016 teaches a solar cell system with a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) charge controller (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a MPPT charge controller. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of minimizing deterioration of the battery.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917) as applied above, and further in view of Feldstein (US 20170241200).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gross does not teach that a power over ethernet (POE) switch interfaces with the controller to provide POE power to the controller.
Feldstein teaches a control system with a power over ethernet (POE) switch that interfaces with a controller to provide POE power to the controller (described in paragraph 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross with teachings of Feldstein so that a power over ethernet (POE) switch interfaces with the controller to provide POE power to the controller. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a power backup in case no solar power can be captured, i.e. at night.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gross does not teach that an ethernet switch interfaces with the controller to provide data to the controller.
Feldstein teaches a control system with an ethernet switch that interfaces with a controller to provide data to the controller (described in paragraph 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that an ethernet switch interfaces with the controller to provide data to the controller. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the controller being able to receive data pertaining to the device, better allowing proper control of the device.
Regarding claim 9, although modified Gross teaches a control system that is configured to provide data to the controller for controlling the one or more motors (the whole system is the control system, which is able to provide data to control the motor), it does not teach a control system that interfaces with at least one of a POE switch or an ethernet switch.
Feldstein teaches a control system with an ethernet switch that interfaces with a controller to provide data to the controller (described in paragraph 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that an ethernet switch interfaces with the controller to provide data to the controller. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the controller being able to receive data pertaining to the device, better allowing proper control of the device.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917) as applied above, and further in view of Humble (US 20040211527).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gross does not teach one or more pivot arms are configured to angle the window shade material outward as the window shade material unrolls.
Humble teaches a window shade system with one or more pivot arms (18) that are configured to angle a window shade material outward as a window shade material unrolls (capable of).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there are one or more pivot arms that are configured to angle the window shade material outward as the window shade material unrolls. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more potential light blocking configurations for a user.
Regarding claim 12, modified Gross but does not teach a pushing rod is that is configured to push the window shade closer to a window.
Humble teaches a window shade system with a pushing rod (18) that is configured to push the window shade material closer to a window (the rod is capable of pushing the shade to a location closer to the window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a pushing rod that is configured to push the window shade material closer to a window. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more potential light blocking configurations for a user.
Regarding claim 13, modified Gross but does not teach a pushing rod is configured to push a bottom of the window shade material closer to a window such that the window shade material is more perpendicular to solar rays.
Humble teaches a window shade system with a pushing rod (18) that is configured to push a bottom of the window shade material closer to a window such that the window shade material is more perpendicular to solar rays (the rod is capable of pushing the shade to a location closer to the window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a pushing rod that is configured to push the window shade material closer to a window. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more potential light blocking configurations for a user.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917) as applied above, and further in view of Tasheiko (US 20140059931).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gross does not teach at least one of an angled windowsill or an angled block is configured to push a bottom of the window shade material closer to a window such that the window shade material is more perpendicular to solar rays.
Tasheiko teaches a window system (fig. 10) with an angled block (at 1014) that is configured to push a bottom of the window shade material closer to a window such that the window shade material is more perpendicular to solar rays (capable of preforming this function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is an angled block that is configured to push a bottom of the window shade material closer to a window such that the window shade material is more perpendicular to solar rays. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing more potential light blocking configurations for a user.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620) and Brunk (US 20170081917) as applied above, and further in view of Colson (US 20140224437).
Regarding claim 15, modified Gross does not teach that the PV film system includes a slip ring.
Colson teaches a PV system with a slip ring (114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a slip ring. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known way of allowing the roller to rotate without twisting the power wires.
Regarding claim 16, modified Gross does not explicitly teach that the PV film system includes a coupler with rotation and load hanging functions separated from power connection functions.
Colson teaches a PV system with a coupler with rotation and load hanging functions (at the right end of fig. 1) separated from power connection functions (at the left end of fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a coupler with rotation and load hanging functions separated from power connection functions. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of securing the roller, while also allowing power to be transferred from the solar cell.
Regarding claim 17, modified Gross does not explicitly teach that the PV film system includes a coupler that receives a tube, wherein the tube interfaces with a PV film, the coupler further comprising: a first wire that interfaces with the PV film; a rotating portion of a slip ring that interfaces with the first wire; a non-rotating portion of the slip ring that interfaces with a second wire; and the second wire exiting the coupler.
Colson teaches a PV system with a coupler that receives a tube (the coupler holds the tube in place), wherein the tube (201) interfaces with a film (shade on the tube), the coupler further comprising: a first wire (143); a rotating portion (136) of a slip ring that interfaces with the first wire; a non-rotating portion (124) of the slip ring that interfaces with a second wire (130); and the second wire exiting the coupler (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that the PV film system includes a coupler that receives a tube, wherein the tube interfaces with a PV film, the coupler further comprising: a first wire that interfaces with the PV film; a rotating portion of a slip ring that interfaces with the first wire; a non-rotating portion of the slip ring that interfaces with a second wire; and the second wire exiting the coupler. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known way of allowing the roller to rotate without twisting the power wires.
Regarding claim 18, modified Gross teaches that the second wire provides solar power to the controller (after the modifications above).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 20140224434) in view of Kim (US 9249620), Brunk (US 20170081917) and Colson (US 20140224437), as applied above, and further in view of Kim ‘016 (US 20170359016).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gross does not teach that the second wire provides solar power to a MPPT charge controller.
Kim ‘016 teaches a solar cell system with a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) charge controller (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Gross so that there is a MPPT charge controller, with the second wire provides solar power to the MPPT charge controller. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of minimizing deterioration of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634