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 .
Election/Restrictions
Due to Applicant’s amendment, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the restriction requirement mailed 11/21/2025 is withdrawn.
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) 23, 24, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0152117 to Hall.
Regarding claims 23, Hall teaches a photovoltaic window covering strip 110 (Figs. 2, 3), the photovoltaic window covering strip comprising: a strip 110 which includes an outer surface (visible in Fig. 2, facing down in Fig. 3B; “exterior side” in ¶0058) and an inner surface (“interior surface”), at least one solar cell mounted on the outer surface (¶0044), and an adherent 380 (¶0060) on the outer surface.
Per claim 24, Hall teaches the limitations of claim 23. The inner surface is a colored surface (¶0059).
Per claim 31, Hall teaches the limitations of claim 24. In an embodiment, the strip comprises a plurality of sections (Fig. 8, ¶0069).
Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0158019 to Hall II.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Hall II teaches a combination of a photovoltaic window covering strip 608 (¶0072, 0077, 0027) for mounting on a window and a photovoltaic blind (not labeled in Fig. 10A; Figs. 6, 8) for mounting on a window frame (¶0009, 0071, 0075), wherein the photovoltaic window covering strip and the photovoltaic blind together cover an entirety of the window (¶0025, 0026).
The photovoltaic window covering strip 608 and the photovoltaic blind are mechanically connected (in the embodiment of Fig. 10A, the strip 608 is mounted on the blind).
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 2014/0116497 to Sanders (of record).
Regarding claim 25, Hall teaches the limitations of claim 23. Hall teaches that an electronic device is in electrical communication with the solar cell (¶0047, 0057), but does not teach that the electronic device is a light emitting device. Sanders teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a light emitting device as such an electronic device in order to provide additional light (¶0060).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0080279 to Eubanks, and further in view of US 2018/0302021 to Hall III.
Regarding claim 34, Eubanks teaches an energy storage and distribution system, the system comprising
A photovoltaic window covering strip 16 (Fig. 3) including a first photovoltaic energy harvesting module 22 (¶0019) a first energy storage module 26, a first controller 24 (¶0020) comprising a wireless radio 42 (¶0021)
A photovoltaic blind 34 including a second photovoltaic energy harvesting module 54 (Fig. 1, ¶0022), a second energy storage module 26 (within 18), a second controller 24 comprising a wireless radio 42
A grid which is in electrical communication with the photovoltaic window covering strip 16 and the photovoltaic blind 34 (¶0019: “The power modules 24 may be connected in common or may be independent of each other.”).
Eubanks does not specifically teach that the photovoltaic window covering strip and photovoltaic blind comprise one or more first sensors or second sensors, respectively. Hall III teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the strip and blind each with temperature sensor (Figs. 5A, 9, ¶0096, 0105) so that the temperature of the respective energy storage modules can be maintained at a safe and functional level (¶0077, 0078).
Eubanks does not detail that the first controller and second controller respectively comprise a processor and a memory. Hall III teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such controllers to each comprise a processor and memory (¶0034, 0039, 0045), as such technology is conventionally used for performing the functions of a controller (¶0069, 0073, 0088, 0096, 0105). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Eubanks does not specifically teach programming or technology capable of determining whether an energy transfer between the photovoltaic window covering strip and the photovoltaic blind is required and instructing one of the photovoltaic window cover strip and the photovoltaic blind to transfer energy via the grid to the other of the photovoltaic window covering strip and the photovoltaic blind as needed. However, Hall III teaches that such preparation of such a function of energy transfer is preferable, as communicated by wireless communication, in order to properly distribute electrical energy based on storage capacity (¶0104, 0109, 0110).
Further, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to enable such functional communication by wireless communication with a server configured to receive a storage capacity dataset from each of the photovoltaic window covering strip and the photovoltaic blind, as enabling such function using a server with dataset production capability is conventional (¶0040-0043 of Hall III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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 S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726