DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 3/18/2024.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-6 are hereby examined below.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tilt-determining means to determine said tilt setting”, “adjustment-determining means to determine an adjustment value as a function of tilt setting” and “adjustment-application means to produce said daylight signal” as are recited in claim 1 and “characterizing means” as recited in claim 4.
Examiner believes the tilt-determining means to be a shaft encoder, potentiometer or two-axis accelerometer as set forth in paragraph [0118]. Examiner believes the adjustment-determining means to be steps executed by a microcontroller, an analog to digital converter or an analog circuit as set forth in paragraphs [0122][0123][0124]. Examiner believes the adjustment-application means to be steps performed by a microcontroller as set forth in paragraph [0129]. Examiner believes the “characterizing means” to be an Application Programming Interface to an online source of weather information, an imaging device or multi-spectral sensor as set forth in paragraph [0169].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “an adjustment-determining means to determine an adjustment value as a function of said tilt setting”. It is unclear how this is accomplished based on the specification as the specification only generally states that the adjustment-determining means could consist of operating steps executed by a microcontroller to evaluate a mathematical function or execute a look-up table on the basis of the tilt setting signal. Based on these generic scenarios, it is unclear what the adjustment-determining means is comprised of, how it operates or what exactly it does. It is further unclear what “an adjustment value as a function of said tilt setting” means. How are the adjustment value and tilt setting related? Similarly, it is unclear just exactly what the adjustment application means is as it is also steps executed by a microcontroller.
Claim 3 recites “said function depends on a location of said sensor relative to said blind”. It is unclear what “said function” is referring to. Is it is referring to “an adjustment value as a function of said tilt setting”? If so, then in what manner does the function depend on the location of the sensor relative to the blind? Claim 4 states that the adjustment value depends on the information characterizing a sky condition. In what way does it depend on this information?
Claim 5 states that the characterizing means includes a multi-spectral sensor. Is the multi-spectral sensor also the sensor to sense a component of daylight in claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
As best understood, claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Popat US 2019/0257686.
As best understood, in regard to claim 1, Popat ‘686 disclose a daylight-sensing system to produce a daylight signal in response to daylight admitted by a horizontal venetian blind (21A, Fig 4), said blind having an adjustable slat tilt setting, said system including: a sensor (22, Fig. 2A) to sense a component of said admitted daylight (29, 30, 31 Fig. 4), said sensor (22) producing a sensor signal (paragraph [0222]); tilt-determining means (encoder coupled to motor shaft, paragraph [0942]) to determine said tilt setting, adjustment-determining means (controller 23, Fig. 1) to determine an adjustment value as a function of said tilt setting; and adjustment-application means (controller 23, Fig. 1) to produce said daylight signal by applying said adjustment value to said sensor signal. (paragraph [0228] discloses that encoded software or firmware (as program steps) adjust the shading device based on the output of the sensor 22)
As best understood, in regard to claim 2, Popat ‘686 discloses: wherein said slat tilt setting is adjustable between an open setting (Fig 3A, paragraph [0255]) and a closed setting (Fig. 3B, paragraph [0256]), and wherein said adjustment value reduces said daylight signal as said tilt setting is adjusted toward said closed setting (paragraph [0228]).
As best understood, in regard to claim 3, Popat ‘686 discloses: wherein said function (of adjusting) depends on a location of said sensor (22, Fig. 4) relative to said blind (21A, Fig. 4). (The light detected by the sensor will depend on where it is located in relation to the blind)
As best understood, in regard to claim 4 Barnes et al ‘399 disclose: said system includes characterizing means (sensor 22, Fig 2A) to obtain information characterizing a sky condition (sunlight); and said adjustment value depends on said information.
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.
As best understood, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popat US 2019/0257686.
As best understood, in regard to claim 5, the embodiment of Fig. 2A of Popat ‘686 fails to disclose: said characterizing means includes a multi-spectral sensor.
However, Figure 30 of Popat ‘686 discloses a characterizing means includes a multi-spectral sensor (22B). (paragraph [0057])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Popat ‘686 Fig. 2A to make the sensor be a multi-spectral sensor as taught by Popat ‘686 Figure 30, as such is shown to be effective for determining high angle glare and excessively bright daylight. (paragraph [0564])
As best understood, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popat US 2019/0257686 in view of Barnes et al US 2021/0180399.
As best understood, in regard to claim 6, Popat ‘686 fails to disclose: said system includes characterizing means to obtain information characterizing a sky condition; and said adjustment value depends on said information.
Barnes et al ‘399 discloses: wherein said characterizing means includes an interface to a source of weather information. (paragraph [0092)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Popat ‘686 to include an interface to a source of weather information as taught by Barnes et al ‘399 as such is known to be useful in conjunction with a sunlight sensor for the tilt control of a blind device. (paragraph [0092])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634