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 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.
In the instant application, all of the recitations including the word “means” are not accompanied by sufficient structure to perform the recited function and are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The limitation “daylight-sensing means” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 12 is described in the specification in at least paragraph 0075 as an electro-optical sensor, a temperature sensor, a current sensor, a photodiode, or the like. The limitation “charge-sensing means” is described in the specification in at least paragraph 0218 as a coulomb-counter integrated circuit or other conventional means of sensing battery charge. The limitations “fluctuation detection means”, “first sensing means”, “second sensing means”, and “filtering means” are described in the specification in at least paragraphs 0100, 0128, 0137, 0155, and 248 as being implemented as software operations executed by the controller. Therefore, the structure associated with these limitations is understood to be the controller itself and not additional hardware elements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Courtney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0185260).
Regarding claim 1, Courtney discloses a system (200) for automatic control of daylight, said system including:
a. an electronically-actuated shading device (104; paragraph 0064 discloses a motorized window treatment 104 that may be a roller shade, draperies, blinds, or the like);
b. daylight-sensing means (202) for sensing a level of daylight (paragraph 0065); and
c. a controller (204) configured to:
i. close said shading device after a first response time after an increase in said level of daylight (during cloudy operation mode 1402, the controller 204 operates the shading device 104 to close; paragraphs 0099, 0120); and
ii. open said shading device after a second response time after a decrease in said level of daylight, said second response time being greater than said first response time (paragraph 0120; during sunny operation mode 1404, the controller opens the shade after a minimum time period that is longer than the near immediate response time for closing the shade).
Regarding claim 2, Courtney discloses fluctuation-detecting means for detecting a fluctuation in said level of daylight (as described in at least paragraph 0070 and shown in Figure 15, the level of daylight is measured at time intervals and a change between measurements is calculated; this calculated/detected change reads on the claimed fluctuation-detecting means), and wherein said controller is configured to increase said second response time when said fluctuation is detected (step 912; paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 3, Courtney discloses that said fluctuation-detection means includes an amplitude demodulator (paragraph 0070 discloses that the light intensity samples are summed, averaged, or integrated over a sampling period to cancel out noise and reduce spikes, which reads on the claimed amplitude demodulation).
Regarding claim 5, Courtney discloses that said fluctuation-detection means includes: first sensing means of sensing an increase in said level of daylight to produce a positive fluctuation signal (paragraph 0123 discloses detection of a large positive rate of change of daylight); second sensing means of sensing a decrease in said level of daylight to produce a negative fluctuation signal (paragraph 0123 discloses detection of a large negative rate of change of daylight); and filtering means of low-pass filtering said positive fluctuation signal with a time-constant which depends on said negative fluctuation signal (paragraphs 0070 and 0122 disclose averaging daylight measurements over time, which reads on a low-pass filter, and different treatment of the daylight readings based on operation in a cloudy state in response to the negative rate of change).
Regarding claim 8, Courtney discloses a system (200) for automatic control of daylight, said system including:
a. an electronically-actuated shading device (104; paragraph 0064 discloses a motorized window treatment 104 that may be a roller shade, draperies, blinds, or the like);
b. daylight-sensing means (202) for sensing a level of daylight (paragraph 0065);
c. fluctuation-detection means for detecting a fluctuation of daylight (as described in at least paragraph 0070 and shown in Figure 15, the level of daylight is measured at time intervals and a change between measurements is calculated; this calculated/detected change reads on the claimed fluctuation-detecting means), and wherein said controller is configured to increase said second response time when said fluctuation is detected (step 912; paragraph 0074)
d. a controller (204) configured to:
i. perform an opening of said shading device following a decrease in said level of daylight (opening performed when switching from sunny operation mode to cloudy operation mode; paragraph 0120);
ii. perform a closing of said shading device following an increase in said level of daylight (closing performed when switching from cloudy operation mode to sunny operation mode; paragraphs 0099, 0120); and
iii. inhibit said opening of said shading device when said fluctuation is detected (paragraphs 0120, 0123; during sunny operation mode, a sudden decrease in light level corresponding to a cloud passing in front of the sun is prevented from causing opening of the shade).
Regarding claim 9, Courtney discloses that said fluctuation-detection means includes an amplitude demodulator (paragraph 0070 discloses that the light intensity samples are summed, averaged, or integrated over a sampling period to cancel out noise and reduce spikes, which reads on the claimed amplitude demodulation).
Regarding claim 11, Courtney discloses that said fluctuation-detection means includes: first sensing means of sensing an increase in said level of daylight to produce a positive fluctuation signal (paragraph 0123 discloses detection of a large positive rate of change of daylight); second sensing means of sensing a decrease in said level of daylight to produce a negative fluctuation signal (paragraph 0123 discloses detection of a large negative rate of change of daylight); and filtering means of low-pass filtering said positive fluctuation signal with a time-constant which depends on said negative fluctuation signal (paragraphs 0070 and 0122 disclose averaging daylight measurements over time, which reads on a low-pass filter, and different treatment of the daylight readings based on operation in a cloudy state in response to the negative rate of change).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0185260) in view of Hebeisen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0189794).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Courtney discloses the fluctuation-detection means, but does not disclose that it includes an application-programming interface to a source of weather data.
Nonetheless, Hebeisen discloses a system for daylight control comprising an application-programming interface to a source of weather data (paragraph 0148).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluctuation-detection means of Courtney to include weather data in the control of the system, as taught by Hebeisen, in order to more reliably predict and detect whether fluctuations in daylight are the result of permanent or temporary weather conditions, so as to prevent unnecessary or frequent movement of the shade.
Claims 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0185260) in view of Adams (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0261078).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Courtney discloses that the system can be configured to accept power from one of a plurality of power sources including a battery (206; paragraph 0064), and further discloses that the controller is configured to increase said second response time based upon inputs from the system (response to the system is variable based on cloudy or sunny conditions, and calculated solar elevation angle as disclosed in paragraphs 0050 and 0061), but Courtney does not disclose a charge-sensing means or control of the system in response to a state of the battery.
Nonetheless, Adams discloses a system for automatic control of daylight, wherein the system includes charge-sensing means for sensing a level of charge of a battery (controller 152 is operable to determine when battery voltage is dropping below specific thresholds), and further discloses changes in the operation of the system in response to different battery states (paragraphs 0105-0107 disclose operation of the system in a low-battery mode that includes slower movement or limiting operation of the shade).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Courtney to include the charge-sensing means and response to low-battery conditions taught by Adams, in order to preserve battery life by reducing the frequency of operations, and to provide a visual indication to a user that battery life is low.
Regarding claim 12, Courtney discloses a system (200) for automatic control of daylight, said system including:
a. an electronically-actuated shading device (104; paragraph 0064 discloses a motorized window treatment 104 that may be a roller shade, draperies, blinds, or the like);
b. daylight-sensing means (202) for sensing a level of daylight (paragraph 0065);
c. a battery (206; paragraph 0064), said battery having a level of charge (the battery inherently has a level of charge); and
d. a controller (204) configured to actuate said shading device after a response time following a change in said level of daylight, wherein said response time depends on a detected state of the system ((paragraphs 0070, 0074, and 0120 disclose actuation of the shade in response to a change in a level of daylight, wherein the response time varies based on environmental conditions--e.g. solar angle--or based on a cloudy or sunny operation state).
Courtney does not disclose that the response time depends on the level of charge of said battery.
Nonetheless, Adams discloses a system for automatic control of daylight including a battery (138) and a controller (152) configured to actuate a respective shading device (110) based on a level of charge of said battery (paragraphs 0105-0107).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Courtney to include operation dependent upon a charge level of the battery, as taught by Adams, in order to preserve battery life by reducing the frequency and speed of operations, and to provide a visual indication to a user that battery life is low.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634