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 (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.
Claims 1-3, 25-30, 40, 41, 50, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel et al. (US 10,221,620), hereinafter referred to as Michel, in further view of Pereira (US 11,293,224).
Regarding claim 1, Michel discloses a motorized window treatment configured to be mounted to a structure (Fig 2), the motorized window treatment comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
528
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
first and second mounting brackets (23) configured to be mounted to the structure (Fig 3); and
PNG
media_image2.png
280
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a window treatment assembly (3) supported by the first and second mounting brackets, the window treatment assembly comprising a covering material (2) that extends from top end to a bottom end and is operable between a raised position and a lowered position,
the window treatment assembly further comprising a bottom bar (8) attached to the bottom end of the covering material (Fig 4),
PNG
media_image3.png
364
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a motor drive unit (Fig 3 above) comprising a motor (5) configured to rotate to adjust the covering material (2) between the raised position and the lowered position; and
a dock (28) having a base portion (Fig 6) electrically coupled to the motor drive unit (Fig 4, base connected to battery connected to motor);
PNG
media_image4.png
448
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the bottom bar (8) is configured to be positioned adjacent to the base portion of the dock (28) when the covering material is in the raised position, such that an energy element of the bottom bar (25 connected via 27) is configured to discharge (via 27) through the base portion of the dock into a second energy storage element (24) of the motor drive unit (col 9, lines 21-37).
PNG
media_image5.png
240
350
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Michel fails to disclose the bottom bar comprises at least one solar cell attached to the bottom bar and a first energy storage element electrically coupled to the solar cell. Instead, Michel teaches an energy element (energy supply 25) coupled to the bottom bar but is an external electrical supply source not a solar cell and energy storage element.
However, Pereira teaches that it is known for a bottom bar of a motorized window treatment to comprise at least one solar cell (22) attached to the bottom bar (Fig 1) and a first energy storage element (24) electrically coupled to the solar cell. The first energy storage element (24) is connected to charge the second energy element (28; col 8, lines 45-52). Pereira further teaches that providing a solar cell and first energy storage element in the bottom bar provides energy efficiency by sourcing solar energy for power. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Michel such that the bottom bar is provided with at least one solar cell and a first energy storage element, as taught by Pereira, in order to charge the second energy storage element. As modified, it would improve Michel so that an external power source is not needed. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique (use of a solar cell and storage element) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As modified, the bottom bar of Michel would have a self-contained power source with a solar cell and energy element omitting the need for the external energy supply.
Regarding claim 2, Michel discloses wherein the window treatment assembly further comprises a roller tube (4; Fig 2) that extends from a first end to a second end, the roller tube rotatably supported by the first mounting bracket (23) at the first end of the roller tube and by the second mounting bracket (23) at the second end of the roller tube (Fig 3 above);
wherein the top end of the covering material (2) is attached to the roller tube (4) and the bottom bar (8) is attached to the bottom end of the covering material (2) (Fig 2); and
wherein the motor drive unit is received in the roller tube at the second end of the roller tube and supported by the first mounting bracket (Fig 3), the motor drive unit configured to rotate the roller tube to adjust the covering material between the raised position and the lowered position (col 5, lines 19-23).
PNG
media_image6.png
78
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Michel discloses wherein the motor drive unit comprises a control circuit configured to control the motor and adjust a present position of the covering material between the raised position and the lowered position (col 7, lines 36-43).
PNG
media_image7.png
234
354
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Michel discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to dock the bottom bar by adjusting the covering material to the raised position (control circuit raises the screen 2) to allow the first energy storage element of the bottom bar to discharge through the base portion of the dock into the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit (col 9, lines 29-37 and col 9 lines 66 – col 10 line 11 and col 10, lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 26, Michel as modified with Pereira wherein the control circuit is configured to automatically determine when to dock the bottom bar. Pereira teaches that the device automatically docks and transmits power when the bottom bar is within 50 mm of the head rail. Michel teaches electromagnet coupling when the connection elements 27, 28 are in the recharging position and therefore docked.
Regarding claims 27-30, Michel fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when a space in which the motorized window treatment is located is vacant. Pereira teaches that it is known to utilize occupancy sensors (Fig 25) to determine conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to configure the control circuit so that the window treatment is to dock the bottom bar when a space in which the motorized window treatment is located is vacant since the elements of a control circuit and occupancy sensor are known and it is well within the skill of an ordinary person in the art to utilize the known elements to configure the control circuit under desired parameters. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” As modified, the motor drive unit comprises a communication circuit configured to receive message (via wired, wireless communication taught by Michel and Pereira of sensor date), and the control circuit is configured to receive a message indicating that the space is vacant via the communication circuit (occupancy sensor taught by Pereira) and wherein the bottom bar comprises a bottom bar module having a sensor circuit configured to detect an occupancy condition or a vacancy condition in the space, the bottom bar module configured to transmit the message indication that the space is vacant to the motor drive unit and wherein the control circuit is configured to receive the message indicating that the space is vacant from an external occupancy sensor.
Regarding claim 40, Michel discloses wherein the base portion (28) comprises a contact surface (Fig 6) configured to abut against the rear surface of the bottom bar (via 27) when the covering material is in the raised position.
Regarding claim 41, Michel as modified with Pereira discloses wherein the bottom bar comprises a first pair of electrical contacts (29 of Michel) electrically coupled to the first energy storage element of the bottom bar, and the dock (28) comprises a second pair of electrical contacts (30) electrically coupled to the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit, the first pair of electrical contacts configured to be electrically coupled to the second pair of electrical contacts for allowing the first energy storage element of the bottom bar to discharge into the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit when the covering material is in the raised position.
Regarding claim 50, Michel fails to disclose wherein the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar are located within a recess of the bottom bar, and the base portion of the dock is configured to be located within the recess of the bottom bar when the bottom bar is docked. Instead, Michel teaches the recess is in the dock and base portion is configure to be located within the recess. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the elements such that the bottom bar comprises the recess and the dock is received in the recess since all the elements are known and such modification would result in equivalent electrical connection. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 57, Michel discloses wherein the dock is integral with the motor drive unit (integral is understood to be a single formed unit).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19-22, 31-37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel and Pereira, as applied in claims 3 and 26 above, in further view of Raude (EP 1 245 782, provided by the applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Michel as modified with Pereira above teaches wherein the bottom bar comprises a bottom bar module configured to collect solar energy via the solar cell (22 of Pereira) at a plurality of intermediate positions between the lowered position and the raised position. Pereira fails to teach that the module collects solar data in response to the at least one solar cell at a plurality of intermediate positions between the lowered position and the raised position, and the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to store the solar data in a memory of the motor drive unit. However, Raude teaches the technique of having a module collect solar data in a control circuit to store the solar data in a memory (stored in memory of unit 10d or unit 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the memory and collection of solar data technique taught by Raude since such technique is known to be utilized in motorized window treatments having solar cells.
Regarding claim 5, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above teaches wherein the solar data comprises one or more one or more measurements or operational characteristics (sensor data and solar data taught by Raude as modified above) of the bottom bar module, and wherein the bottom bar module is configured to periodically collect the at least one of the one or more measurements or operational characteristics of the bottom bar at a timing interval.
Regarding claim 8, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above teaches wherein the timing interval has a first value when the covering material is not being adjusted (when motor is stopped) and a second value when the covering material is being adjusted.
Regarding claim 9, Michel discloses sensors but fails to specifically teach wherein the bottom bar module comprises a sensor circuit configured to determine when the bottom bar is moving, and to determine that the covering material is being adjusted in response to the sensing circuit, and wherein the sensing circuit comprises at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope. However, Pereira specifically teaches a motorized window treatment having inertial sensors (20) such as accelerometers or gyroscopes to provide information to determine when the window treatment should be raised or lowered for automatic operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to provide the sensors of Michel as the sensors of Pereira since they are known sensors for aiding and improving automation of a window blind. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, Michel teaches wherein the bottom bar module is configured to determine that the covering material is being adjusted in response to a message received from the motor drive unit (motorized drive device 5 is controlled by a control unit which is in communication with sensors and remote control 14).
Regarding claim 12, Michel as modified with Pereira above, Michel is provided with the solar cell and first energy storage element of Pereira and Pereira teaches wherein the bottom bar module comprises a solar cell management circuit configured to charge the first energy storage element (24 of Pereira) from a photovoltaic output voltage generated by the at least one solar cell (22 of Pereira) for generating a storage voltage across the energy storage element of the bottom bar.
Regarding claims 15-17, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above discloses wherein the bottom bar module is configured to transmit messages to the motor drive unit via a wired communication link when the bottom bar is docked (col 6 line 65 – col 7 line 4 of Michel), as modified above, Michel is provided with sensor and solar data means of Raude and teaches the bottom bar further configured to store the at least one of the one or more measurements or operational characteristics of the bottom bar in the solar data in a memory of the bottom bar along with a time stamp defining a time at which the at least one of the one or more measurements or operational characteristics of the bottom bar is collected (memory is capable of providing a time stamp) and wherein the bottom bar module is configured to transmit the solar data to the control circuit of the motor drive unit when the bottom bar is docked. As modified with Raude the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to store a record (in memory) of a respective movement of the covering material each time that the control circuit controls the motor to adjust the present position of the covering material; and wherein the control circuit is configured to use the time stamps (via memory) in the solar data to determine respective positions of the covering material from the stored records of the respective movements, and to store in the solar data in the memory of the motor drive unit the respective positions of the covering material.
Regarding claim 19, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above discloses wherein the bottom bar module is configured to transmit messages to the motor drive unit via wireless signals (col 6 line 65 – col 7 line 4 of Michel), the bottom bar further configured to periodically transmit at least one of the one or more measurements or operational characteristics of the bottom bar to the motor drive unit (as modified with Raude and Pereira).
Regarding claim 20, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude teaches wherein the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to store the at least one of the one or more measurements or operational characteristics of the bottom bar in the solar data in the memory along with the present position of the covering material.
Regarding claim 21, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude teaches wherein the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to use the solar data to configure the motor drive unit.
Regarding claim 22, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude teaches wherein the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to use the solar data to determine an optimum position for allowing the reception of solar power by the at least one solar cell, to determine an upper limit position for controlling the covering material, or to determine one or more dead zones between the lowered position and the raised position (energy efficient positions; col 1, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 31, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when a magnitude of a storage voltage of the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit is less than a first threshold. Raude teaches determining the magnitude of the storage voltage of the energy storage element and moving the treatment when below a threshold and Michel and Pereira teach movement of the bottom bar to dock and charge the other energy storage element, therefore as combined above, the combination teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when a magnitude of a storage voltage of the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit is less than a first threshold.
Regarding claims 32-36, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude above discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when the magnitude of the storage voltage of the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit is less than the first threshold when a space in which the motorized window treatment is located is vacant and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when the magnitude of the storage voltage of the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit is less than a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold when the space in which the motorized window treatment is located is occupied and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar when a magnitude of a storage voltage of the first energy storage element of the bottom bar is greater than a threshold and wherein the bottom bar comprises a bottom bar module configured to transmit a message indicating the magnitude of the storage voltage of the first energy storage element, and the control circuit of the motor drive unit is configured to receive message indicating the magnitude of the storage voltage of the first energy storage element and determine to dock the bottom bar when the magnitude of the storage voltage of the first energy storage element is greater than the threshold and wherein the bottom bar comprises a bottom bar module configured to transmit a message with an indication to dock the bottom bar to the motor drive unit in response to determining that the magnitude of the storage voltage of the first energy storage element is greater than the threshold, and the motor drive unit is configured to determine to dock the bottom bar in response to receiving the message from the bottom bar module. Michel teaches the docking of the bottom bar in order to charge the energy storage element and as modified with Pereira teaches the detection of occupancy (Fig 25) and solar cell and Raude teaches the detection of voltage less than or above a threshold and transmitting a signal delivered by the detection of sufficient energy supply. All the elements were known in the prior art and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the known techniques. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Regarding claims 37 and 39, Michel as modified with Pereira and Raude teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a magnitude of a solar power being received by the at least one the solar cell of the bottom bar and to determine to adjust the present position of the covering material when the magnitude of the solar power being received by the at least one the solar cell of the bottom bar is less than a first threshold. Raude teaches when the solar cell produces solar power less than a threshold value the covering is ascended or descended. It would have been obvious that modified Michel in view of the teachings of Raude be controlled according to the data to optimize the window treatment and as modified, Raude teaches wherein, after determining to adjust the present position of the covering material, adjusting the present position of the covering material until the magnitude of the solar power being received by the at least one the solar cell of the bottom bar is greater than a second threshold.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel, Pereira, and Raude, as applied in claim 12 above, in further view of Adams et al. (US 2021/0367542), hereinafter referred to as Adams.
Regarding claim 13, modified Michel in view of Pereira and Raude fail to disclose wherein the solar data comprises at least one of a magnitude of the photovoltaic output voltage generated by the at least one solar cell or a magnitude of the storage voltage generated across the first energy storage element of the bottom bar. However, Adams teaches the technique of determining the magnitude of storage voltage across an energy storage element (paragraph [0086]) to indicate need of charge or cease of charge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Michel and provide the means of Adams in order to provide greater control of the power sources of the window treatment. As modified, it is taught wherein the solar cell management circuit is characterized by a duty cycle required to generate the storage voltage across the first energy storage element of the bottom bar from the photovoltaic output voltage, and wherein the solar data comprises the duty cycle of the solar cell management circuit (paragraph [0098] of Adams teaches controlled duty cycle).
Claims 42, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel, and Pereira, as applied in claim 41 above, in further view of Dalmau Ferrerfabrega et al. (US 6,623,276), hereinafter referred to as Dalmau Ferrerfabrega.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Michel teaches wherein the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar comprises a first pair of elongated conductive elements (29; Fig 5) and the second pair of electrical contacts of the dock (Fig 6) comprises a second pair of conductive elements (30). Michel fails to teach each of the second pair of electrical contacts of the dock comprises a second pair of elongated conductive elements, and wherein each of the first pair of elongated conductive elements is oriented perpendicular to each of the second pair of elongated conductive elements, respectively. However, Dalmau Ferrerfabrega teaches that it is known to provide an electrical connection between a first pair of electrical contacts comprising a first pair of elongated conductive elements (14) and a second pair of electrical contacts comprising a second pair of elongated conductive elements (10) in which each of the first pair of elongated conductive elements (Fig 2) is oriented perpendicular to each of the second pair of elongated conductive elements (10) (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second pairs of contacts of Michel such that they are first and second pairs of elongated conductive elements, respectively, with the first pair of elongated elements and the second pair of elongated conductive elements being perpendicular since it is a known arrangement of providing electrical contact, as taught by Dalmau Ferrerfabrega. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results. As modified, wherein each of the first pair of elongated conductive elements is oriented vertically, and each of the second pair of elongated conductive elements is oriented horizontally; or wherein each of the first pair of elongated conductive elements is oriented horizontally, and each of the second pair of elongated conductive elements is oriented vertically; with first contacts (29) of Michel extending vertically the contacts (30) of Michel as modified with the teachings of Dalmau Ferrerfabrega (contacts 10) would extend horizontally.
Regarding claim 45, Michel discloses wherein the dock comprises at least one magnet configured to be magnetically attracted to at least one of the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar (col 11, lines 36-49).
Claims 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel, and Pereira, as applied in claim 41 above, in further view of Niekawa (US 5,385,478).
Regarding claim 46 and 48, Michel fails to disclose wherein the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar comprises a first pair of planar pieces of conductive material and each of the second pair of electrical contacts of the dock comprises a second pair of spring contacts that are biased towards the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively, when the bottom bar is docked and wherein the dock comprises a biasing member configured to push against the bottom bar when the bottom bar is docked to hold the second pair of spring contacts against the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively. However, Niekawa teaches that it is known for an electrical connection be formed between a first pair of electrical contacts comprising first pair of planar pieces of conductive material (611 and 612) and a second pair of electric contacts comprising a second pair of spring contacts (581 and 582). Niekawa further teaches a biasing member (58) configured to push against to hold the second pair of spring contacts against the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the first pair of electrical contacts and the second pair of electrical contacts in view of the teachings of Wright so that the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar comprises a first pair of planar pieces of conductive material and each of the second pair of electrical contacts of the dock comprises a second pair of spring contacts that are biased towards the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively, when the bottom bar is docked in order to ensure electrical contact, as taught by Niekawa, and as modified the dock comprises a biasing member configured to push against the bottom bar when the bottom bar is docked to hold the second pair of spring contacts against the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively.
Regarding claim 47, modified Michel discloses wherein the window treatment assembly further comprises a roller tube (Fig 3) that extends from a first end to a second end, the roller tube rotatably supported by the first mounting bracket (23) at the first end of the roller tube and by the second mounting bracket (23) at the second end of the roller tube; and wherein, when the bottom bar is docked (in the charging position), as modified with Wright above, the second pair of spring contacts are held against the first pair of planar pieces of conductive material, respectively, due to the covering material wrapped around the roller tube pushing against the bottom bar (Michel teaches when docked the bottom bar and top rail are in contact thus it is understood that the roller tube of the top rail pushes against the bottom bar).
Regarding claim 49, Michel as modified with Wright above discloses wherein a first one of the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar comprises a first planar piece of conductive material located on a front surface (611; Fig 30 of Wright) of the bottom bar (modified Michel) and a second one of the first pair of electrical contacts of the bottom bar comprises a first planar piece of conductive material (612; Fig 30 of Wright) located on a rear surface of the bottom bar (modified Michel), and wherein a first one of the second pair of electrical contacts of the dock comprises a first spring contact (581; Fig 30 of Wright) that extends from a front wall of the dock and is biased towards the bottom bar (modified Michel) when the bottom bar is docked and a second one of the second pair of electrical contacts (592; Fig 30 of Wright) of the dock comprises a second spring contact that extends from a rear wall of the dock and is biased towards the bottom bar when the bottom bar is docked.
Claims 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel, and Pereira, as applied in claim 40 above, in further view of Naskali (US 8,277,246).
Regarding claim 51, Michel teaches that the electrical contacts comprise wherein the bottom bar comprises a first coil electrically coupled to the first energy storage element of the bottom bar, and the dock comprises a second coil electrically coupled to the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit, the first induction coil configured to be inductively coupled to the second induction coil for allowing the first energy storage element of the bottom bar to discharge into the second energy storage element of the motor drive unit when the covering material is in the raised position. Michel fails to specifically state “induction coils.” However, Naskali teaches that it is known to provide electrical contacts as induction coils (120, 132) to provide contactless electric charging. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the electrical contacts of Michel such that they are provided with induction coils, as taught by Naskali since it provides known alternative technique that provides equivalent charging means.
Regarding claim 52, modified Michel the dock comprises at least one magnet configured to be magnetically attracted to at least one magnet on the bottom bar (electromagnetic means).
Claim 53 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel and Pereira, as applied in claims 1 and 40 above, in further view of Alves (US 2022/0042372).
Regarding claim 53 and 56, Michel as modified with Pereira teaches a solar cell. Pereira teaches that the solar cell of the bottom bar is oriented vertically not at an angle from a vertical axis of the motorized window treatment, such that the solar cell is directed towards the sky. However, Alves teaches that it is known for a solar cell (180) that is attached to a bottom bar to be oriented at an angle from a vertical axis of the motorized window treatment (Fig 9A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Michel and Pereira such that the solar cell is oriented at an angle, as taught by Alves, since it is a known technique. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As modified, the rear surface of the bottom bar is oriented at an angle from a vertical axis of the motorized window treatment, and the contact surface is oriented at approximately the angle at which the rear surface of the bottom bar is oriented, this would allow the solar cell to be arranged at an angle as modified above.
Claims 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel and Pereira, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Caregnato et al. (US 11,781,378), hereinafter referred to as Caregnato.
Regarding claims 54 and 55, modified Michel discloses that the dock comprises an attachment member (Fig 7) comprising a plate with an arm (35) that is oriented at an angle from the plate (Fig 7) with the base portion attached to the arm such that the arm and base portion are located adjacent a rear surface of the covering and the motor drive unit comprises an end portion that is supported by the first mounting bracket. Michel fails to disclose the dock comprises an attachment member extending from the end portion of the motor drive unit to the base portion, wherein the attachment member comprises a plate attached to the end portion of the motor drive unit. However, Caregnato discloses that it is known for a dock to comprise an attachment member extending from the end portion of the motor drive unit to the base portion (Fig 5), wherein the attachment member comprises a plate attached to the end portion of the motor drive unit (Fig 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the location of the dock of Michel in view of the teachings of Caregnato since it would simplify the arrangement and utilize known charging locations.
Claims 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel and Pereira, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Berman et al. (US 7,977,904), hereinafter referred to as Berman.
Regarding claims 58-60, Michel discloses wherein the motor drive unit comprises a control circuit that is configured to control the motor to adjust a present position of the covering material to the raised position to position the bottom bar adjacent to the base portion of the dock based on communication with a weather station and one or more sensors that can be configured to determine temperature, brightness, or wind speed (col 7, lines 5-9). Michel fails to specifically disclose that it is based on a determination that sun is not shining on a facade of which the motorized window treatment is installed and on determination that weather information indicates that it is cloudy at a location of the motorized window treatment and on feedback from a photosensor indicating that a light level that is less than a threshold light level. However, Berman teaches that it is known to control a motor to adjust a present position of the covering material to the raised position to position the bottom bar adjacent to the base portion of the dock that it is based on a determination that sun is not shining on a facade of which the motorized window treatment is installed (col 15, lines 4-10) and on determination that weather information indicates that it is cloudy at a location of the motorized window treatment (col 5, lines 22-23) and on feedback from a photosensor indicating that a light level that is less than a threshold light level (col 22, lines 3-6 and col 24, lines 16-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit of Michel such that the control is based on a determination that sun is not shining on a facade of which the motorized window treatment is installed and on determination that weather information indicates that it is cloudy at a location of the motorized window treatment and on feedback from a photosensor indicating that a light level that is less than a threshold light level since such technique are known, as taught by Berman. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634