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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 7/9/2026. Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 2-32 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The invention is a system that includes at least one motorized window treatment positioned adjacent to at least one window having a motor drive unit for adjusting a position of the at least one motorized window treatment.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0027759 ("Albahri").
Regarding claim 2, Albahri discloses a controller (controller, Fig. 1) for use in a load control system for controlling an electrical load (SPD or LCW or NCD display element, Fig. 1, paragraph [0089]), the controller comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a first sensor signal (voltage signal, paragraph [0091]) from a first sensor (any one of front, right, left, rear-side photocells, Figs. 1, 3, paragraph [0092], [0097]);
receive a second sensor signal (voltage signal, paragraph [0091]) from a second sensor (any other one of front, right, left, rear-side photocells, Figs. 1, 3, paragraphs [0097]),
wherein the first sensor signal represents a light level at a first window and the second sensor signal represents a light level at a second window (see Fig. 3, and paragraph [0103], [0105]-[0106], or see Fig. 26, paragraph [0108]),
wherein the first sensor (for example, left-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle (inherent) with respect to the first window (for example, left window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see left horizontal photocell, Fig. 16) and the second sensor (for example, right-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle (inherent) with respect to the second window (for example, right-side window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see right vertical photocell, Fig. 16); and
control one or more electrical loads (SPD or LCW, NCD, display element, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0089], [0105]-[0106]) based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (paragraphs [0105]-[0106], controller changes the tint for specific windows based sun direction which is determined by the output of all sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, wherein the first window and the second window are different windows (see Fig. 3, different windows).
Regarding claim 10, Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, wherein the first and second angles are different from each other (see Fig. 26, can be vertical and horizontal angles on two windows).
Regarding claim 11, Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, wherein the first and second angles (horizontal and vertical, Fig. 26) are symmetric about a normal of a plane of the first window and the second window, respectively (see Fig. 26, sensors are placed symmetrically about a normal of a plane of the first and second windows).
Regarding claim 26, Albhari discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first sensor signal (voltage signal, paragraph [0091]) from a first sensor (any one of front, right, left, rear-side photocells, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109]);
receiving a second sensor signal (voltage signal, paragraph [0091]) from a second sensor (any one of front, right, left, rear-side photocells, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109]),
wherein the first sensor signal represents a light level at a first window and the second sensor signal represents a light level at a second window (see Fig. 3, and paragraph [0109], or see Fig. 26, paragraph [0108]),
wherein the first sensor is configured to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle with respect to the first window and the second sensor is configured to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle with respect to the second window (see Fig. 3, and paragraph [0109], or see Fig. 26, paragraph [0108]); and
controlling (controller, Fig. 1) one or more electrical loads (display element on each window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109]) based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (paragraphs [0105]-[0106], controller changes the tint for specific windows based sun direction which is determined by the output of all sensors).
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 2-3, 5-9, 12-13, and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0207730 ("Berman") in view of Albahri.
Regarding claim 2, Berman discloses a controller (110, Fig. 1) for use in a load control system for controlling an electrical load (motorized window coverings, paragraph [0007]), the controller comprising:
a processor (paragraphs [0019], [0027]) configured to:
receive a first sensor signal (millivolt signals, paragraph [0038]) from a first sensor (any one of radiometers 125, Fig. 1, paragraph [0039] or photosensors, paragraph [0075]);
receive a second sensor signal (millivolt signals, paragraph [0038]) from a second sensor (any other one of radiometers 125, Fig. 1, paragraph [0039] or photosensors, paragraph [0075]),
wherein the first sensor signal represents a light level at a first window (see Fig. 2, and paragraph [0077]-[0080], for example: “(7) one sensor about 3 inches from the center of the extended window covering 255 when window covering 255 is about 25% closed;”) and the second sensor signal represents a light level at a second window (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0077]-[0080], for example: “(8) one sensor about 3 inches from the center of the extended window covering 255 when covering 255 is about 25% to 50% closed;” or see (9) and (10)),
wherein the first sensor (for example, any sensor located on either (2), (7)-(10) as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0080]) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle (inherent) with respect to the first window (for example, at any window location of 215, 220, 225, 230, Fig. 2) and the second sensor (for example, any other sensor located on other one of either (2), (7)-(10) as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0080]) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle (inherent) with respect to the second window (for example, at any other window location of 215, 220, 225, 230, Fig. 2); and
control one or more electrical loads (motorized window coverings, paragraph [0076]) based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (605, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076], [0078]).
Berman does not explicitly discloses that that the first sensor is configurable to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle with respect to the first window and the second sensor is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle with respect to the second window.
However, Albahri discloses a first sensor (for example, left-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle (inherent) with respect to the first window (for example, left window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see left horizontal photocell, Fig. 26) and the second sensor (for example, right-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle (inherent) with respect to the second window (for example, right-side window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see right vertical photocell, Fig. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different sensors responsive to light entering at a different angle as disclosed by Albahri in the device of Berman in order to determine the angle of the sun and optimize the amount/movement of window tinting/window covering location.
Regarding claim 3, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, and Berman further discloses that the first window and the second window are a same window (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, and Berman further discloses that the processor is configured to: identify a sensor failure (303, Fig. 3, paragraph [0069]) when at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor is not operational (any of the sensors that are out-of-range, paragraph [0069]); and enter an operating mode for controlling the one or more electrical loads without using the first sensor signal and without using the second sensor signal, when the sensor failure is identified (paragraph [0069], only in-range radiometers are used).
Regarding claim 6, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, and Berman further discloses that the processor is further configured to: combine the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal into a combined sensor signal (paragraph [0069]: average the readings of the in-range radiometers, and see 605, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076]); and control one or more electrical loads based on the combined sensor signal (see 607, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 6, and Berman further discloses that the processor is configured to combine the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal by summing the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (paragraphs [0069], [0076], averaging signals necessarily includes summing the signals).
Regarding claim 8, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose that the processor is configured to combine the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal by receiving the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal asynchronously, and summing a most recently received first sensor signal with a most recently received second sensor signal.
However, the timing of reading sensors signals is an obvious matter of design choice. Further, in Fig. 26 of Albahri, the dual photocell arrangement allow for detecting sunrays asynchronously depending on the time of day/solar angle inherently reaching one sensor first before the second due to the angular placement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive the signals asynchronously and use the most recent signals in order to obtain the most recent lighting conditions.
Regarding claim 9, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 6, and Berman further discloses that the processor is configured to sum the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal each time the processor receives either one of the first sensor signal or the second sensor signal (paragraphs [0069], [0076], averaging signals necessarily includes summing the signals implied to happen each time the processor receives either one of the sensor signals).
Regarding claim 12, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, and Berman further discloses that the first and the second sensors are oriented so that an outward facing normal to a plane of a front surface of a photosensitive element of the second sensor is in an opposite direction from an outward facing normal to a plane of a front surface of a photosensitive element of the first sensor (paragraph [0039], radiometers 125 can be placed facing outside a window or inside a window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the first and second sensors oriented in opposite directions as disclosed by Berman in the device of Berman in view of Albahri in order to quality/quantify sky conditions as well as inside the structure to detect the amount of visible light within a structure.
Regarding claim 13, Berman in view of Albahri discloses the controller of claim 2, and Berman further discloses that the one or more electrical loads comprise one or more motorized window treatments load (motorized window coverings, paragraph [0007]), and wherein to control the one or more electrical loads load (motorized window coverings, paragraph [0007]) comprises to transmit one or more commands (paragraph [0029]) to the one or more motorized window treatments to adjust a position of the one or more motorized window treatments based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (Fig. 3, and see 607, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Albhari discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first sensor signal (millivolt signals, paragraph [0038]) from a first sensor (any one of radiometers 125, Fig. 1, paragraph [0039] or photosensors, paragraph [0075]);
receiving a second sensor signal (millivolt signals, paragraph [0038]) from a second sensor (any other one of radiometers 125, Fig. 1, paragraph [0039] or photosensors, paragraph [0075]),
wherein the first sensor signal represents a light level at a first window and the second sensor signal represents a light level at a second window (see Fig. 3, and paragraph [0103], [0105]-[0106], or see Fig. 26, paragraph [0108]),
wherein the first sensor is configured to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle with respect to the first window (see Fig. 2, and paragraph [0077]-[0080], for example: “(7) one sensor about 3 inches from the center of the extended window covering 255 when window covering 255 is about 25% closed;”) and the second sensor signal represents a light level at a second window (see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0077]-[0080], for example: “(8) one sensor about 3 inches from the center of the extended window covering 255 when covering 255 is about 25% to 50% closed;” or see (9) and (10)); and
controlling one or more electrical loads (motorized window coverings, paragraph [0076]) based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (605, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076], [0078]).
Berman does not explicitly discloses that that the first sensor is configured to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle with respect to the first window and the second sensor is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle with respect to the second window.
However, Albahri discloses a first sensor (for example, left-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the first sensor at a first angle (inherent) with respect to the first window (for example, left window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see left horizontal photocell, Fig. 26) and the second sensor (for example, right-side light sensor, Fig. 3) is configurable to be responsive to light entering the second sensor at a second angle (inherent) with respect to the second window (for example, right-side window, Fig. 3, paragraph [0109], or see right vertical photocell, Fig. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use different sensors responsive to light entering at a different angle as disclosed by Albahri in the device of Berman in order to determine the angle of the sun and optimize the amount/movement of window tinting/window covering location.
Regarding claim 27, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 26, and Berman further discloses combining the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal into a combined sensor signal (paragraph [0069]: average the readings of the in-range radiometers, and see 605, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076]); wherein controlling the one or more electrical loads based on the combined sensor signal (see 607, Fig. 6, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 28, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 27, and Berman further discloses that the combining includes summing the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (paragraphs [0069], [0076], averaging signals necessarily includes summing the signals).
Regarding claim 29, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 27, and Berman further discloses: receiving a third sensor signal representing a light level at one of the first window or the second window from a third sensor (any other third photosensor or radiometer 125, for example sensors (1), (2), (9) or (10) in paragraph [0077]); selecting either the third sensor signal or the combined sensor signal (paragraph [0078], select sensors chosen); and controlling the one or more electrical loads based on the selection (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 30, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 29, and Berman further discloses that the selection is based on whether a value of the third sensor signal is greater than a value of the combined sensor signal (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 31, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 29, and Berman further discloses that the selection is based on a solar angle of incidence (solar geometry, paragraph [0078], [0080], [0088]).
Regarding claim 32, Berman in view of Albhari discloses the method of claim 26, and Berman further discloses: identifying a sensor failure (303, Fig. 3, paragraph [0069]) when at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor is not operational (any of the sensors that are out-of-range, paragraph [0069]); and entering an operating mode for controlling the one or more electrical loads without using the first sensor signal and without using the second sensor signal, when the sensor failure is identified (paragraph [0069], only in-range radiometers are used).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights