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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Group I, Claims 1-20 and 32-33 - directed towards a dynamic window that comprises a first pane, a second pane, a third pane and a fluid container.
Group II, Claims 21-30 - directed towards a system for intelligent heat and light control in a building that comprises one or more sensors for monitoring building orientation, a fluid management system for regulating heat exchange, and a fluid management system for circulating one or more fluids or gels through the building’s façade.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: claim 31.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Hari Atkuri on 09/22/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-20 and 32-33. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-30 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner points out that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Limitations following "configured to," "adapted for," "designed to," "can be," and "capable of," or are statements of intended use are not positive limitations and thus are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 and 2114.
Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of” and “can be” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the Examiner has addressed all limitations following the phrase "capable of" and “can be”.
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, 8, 10, 13 and 15-16 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. Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, 13 and 15-16, the applicant claims “a material such as a fluid or a gas or a gel” and “a control signal such that, for example”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to the intended scope of the claims as the metes and bounds of the invention are unclear. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the phrases “a material such as a fluid or a gas or a gel” and “a control signal such that, for example” are rendered moot and will not be addressed by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner points out that each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods are not used elsewhere in claims except in abbreviations. Each claim as a single, complete, grammatically correct sentence (or a clearly structured set of sentences) that meets the MPEP’s sentence-form rule. See MPEP § 608.01(m) – Form of Claims.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant claims “the fluid may include at least one fluid such as clear, transparent, opaque, dark, translucent, absorbing, reflective, or similar fluid” and “light control effects such as transparent, clear, reflective, absorbing, privacy, dark, opaque, or translucent effects or similar effects”, however, it is unclear as to what exactly the claimed “similar effects” are, therefore, claim 8 is rendered vague and indefinite. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the Examiner interprets the phrase “the fluid may include at least one fluid such as clear, transparent, opaque, dark, translucent, absorbing, reflective, or similar fluid” to be read --“the fluid may include at least one fluid including a clear, transparent, opaque, dark, translucent, absorbing, or reflective”-- and the “light control effects such as transparent, clear, reflective, absorbing, privacy, dark, opaque, or translucent effects or similar effects” to be read --light control effects including transparent, clear, reflective, absorbing, privacy, dark, opaque, or translucent effects--.
Claims 1-20 and 32-33 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited on the attached PTO-892 form.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borden (US 5,608,995).
Regarding claim 1, Borden discloses, a dynamic window (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a first pane (3);
a second pane (4), wherein the first pane and the second pane are arranged to define a cavity (6) between the first pane and the second pane;
a third pane (2), wherein the second pane and third pane are arranged to define a cavity (12) between the second pane and third pane, a treated surface on at least one of the first pane or the second pane or the third pane (Col. 8, lines 31-37);
a fluid container (1, 2, 11, 12) placed remotely or immediately coupled to one of the cavities of the panes for holding a material including one of a fluid or a gas or a gel (Col. 4, lines 66-67, Col. 5, lines 1-3 and see 11, 12), wherein the material can be configured to be selected from a variety of air or fluids or gels characterized by various optical and physical properties (Col. 2, lines 54-65);
one or more ports (7, 14, 15) positioned between the material container and one or more of the cavities; and
a controller (Col. 1, lines 45-60, Col. 3, lines 32-37 and Col. 9, lines 15-20) coupled to the material container, wherein the controller is configured to controllably manage one or more materials (11, 12) into one or more cavities (1, 2) through the port or ports to control a state of transmissivity, absorptivity, reflectivity, opacity, or other optical properties of light and power generation through the panes (Col. 2, lines 1-18 and 54-65).
Regarding claim 2, Borden discloses, the treated surface is a roughened surface, a modified surface, a hydrophobic surface, a hydrophilic surface, an oleophobic surface, or omniphobic surface or a combination thereof (Col. 8, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 3, Borden discloses, the treated surface is on an inner surface of one or more panes facing inward toward the cavity, wherein the material or fluid comes fully or partially in contact with the treated surface (Col. 8, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 4, Borden discloses, the treated surface is configured to provide a default opaque or clear or some other optical state in the absence or presence of one or more materials in the cavity (Col. 8, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 5, Borden discloses, the fluid includes a clear fluid, and a presence of the clear fluid in the cavity generate a transparent condition through the panes (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 6, Borden discloses, the fluid includes a colored fluid, and a presence of the colored fluid in the cavity change the state of transmissivity from an opaque state to a translucent or to other optical states based on the fluid and selection of surface treatments (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 7, Borden discloses, the fluid container comprises: a first container (1) and a first clear or opaque or colored fluid in the first container (11), a second container (2) and a second different colored or clear or opaque fluid in the second container (12), different from first fluid, wherein: a dispense of the clear fluid into the cavity transforms the state of transmissivity from a default opaque state to a transparent state (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62), and a dispense of the colored fluid into the cavity changes the state of transmissivity from the transparent state to a translucent state (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62), wherein at least fluid can be managed inside the cavity to realize at least one optical effect of the fluid in the cavity (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 8, Borden discloses, the fluid may include at least one fluid (11, 12) including a clear, transparent, opaque, dark, translucent, absorbing, or reflective, and a presence of at least one of such fluids creates optical effects not limited to light control effects including transparent, clear, reflective, absorbing, privacy, dark, opaque, or translucent effects (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62), wherein in the absence of one or more fluids in the cavity, the dynamic window generates the desired optical state depending on the pane color and surface treatment, selection, and often creates a clear optical view of the environment on the other side (Col. 2, lines 1-8, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 12, Borden discloses, a system for operating a dynamic window, comprising:
one or more panes (3, 4), wherein the one or more panes are surface treated, having a modified, roughened, hydrophilic, oleophobic, omniphobic or hydrophobic surface (Col. 8, lines 20-25);
a fluid container (1, 2) coupled to the one or more panes, wherein the fluid container contains one or more fluids (11, 12) capable of gradually changing and controlling the optical properties of the one or more panes (Col. 2, lines 1-18 and 54-65);
one or more ports (7, 14, 15) positioned between the fluid container and the one or more panes; and
a controller (Col. 1, lines 45-60, Col. 3, lines 32-37 and Col. 9, lines 15-20) coupled to the fluid container, wherein the controller is configured to manage the one or more fluids by selectively introducing them through the port or ports to control the optical properties of one or more panes effecting the light characteristic of the interior environment and external view of the dynamic window (Col. 2, lines 1-18 and 54-65).
Regarding claim 13, Borden discloses, a kinetic glass (Figs. 1-2) comprising a plurality of layers (3, 4, 6), wherein at least one fluid layer (11, 12) is capable of movement in response to an external force (Col. 5, lines 20-48), wherein the movement of said layer is controlled by an actuator (Col. 4, lines 38-49 and Col. 9, lines 15-17), and wherein said kinetic glass is capable of transitioning among at least a first optical state (Col. 2, lines 11-13; note, discloses an open shutter (transparent state)) and a second optical state (Col. 2, lines 11-13; note, discloses a closed shutter (dark state)) in response to a control signal, wherein a top portion of the window can be completely dark and opaque from a first fluid (see Fig. 2), whereas the remaining bottom portion of the window can be transparent from a second fluid to view the other side of the dynamic window (see Fig. 2) wherein the first fluid and second fluid are non-miscible and have specific optical and physical properties (Col. 4, lines 66-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Borden discloses, the one or more fluids comprise at least one fluid selected from the group consisting of clear, transparent, opaque, dark, reflective, absorbing, and translucent fluids (11, 12), and the presence of at least one of these fluids in the cavity between the panes creates optical or light control effects including, but not limited to, transparency, diffuse reflectivity, mirror like reflectivity, absorption, darkness, opacity, translucency, or similar optical effects (Col. 2, lines 11-13; note, discloses a first optical effect including an open shutter (transparent state)) and a second optical effect a closed shutter (dark state)).
Regarding claim 16, Borden discloses, the surface treatment on the one or more panes is configured to provide a default optical state in the absence or presence of the one or more fluids in the cavity, such as an opaque or clear state (Col. 2, lines 1-18 and 54-65).
Regarding claim 17, Borden discloses, the one or more ports (7, 14, 15) are positioned such that the one or more fluids (11, 12) can be selectively introduced into different cavities between the panes to achieve different optical effects on different locations or portions of the window (Col. 2, lines 1-18, 54-65 and Col. 5, lines 49-62).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingber et al. (US 2014/013578).
Regarding claim 33, Ingber discloses, a kinetic glass (Fig. 1) comprising at least one pane (100, 110), wherein the pane comprises a transparent photovoltaic layer configured to generate power (Para. 0059), thereby enabling the kinetic glass to be utilized for light control, privacy control, heat control, and power generation application (Para. 0043 and 0059).
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 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden (US 5,608,995) in view of Briggs et al. (US 9,567,995).
Regarding claim 9, Borden discloses, a dynamic window system (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a double-paned window (3, 4), including an air-gap between panes (see 6);
an abraded surface (Col. 8, lines 20-25) on the double-paned window, wherein the abraded surface is configured to scatter light passing through the air-gap and generating a default opaque state of the window (Col. 8, lines 20-25);
a fluid container (1, 2) coupled to the double-paned window and having access to the airgap;
a controller (Col. 1, lines 45-60, Col. 3, lines 30-32 and Col. 9, lines 15-20) coupled to the fluid container, wherein the controller is configured to vary the quantity of fluid in the cavity and change the amount of fluid in the cavity between the two panes of the window to adjust the amount of light transmitted, reflected, back-ward scattered, forward-scattered or absorbed, through the window (Col. 2, lines 1-18 and 54-65).
Borden does not explicitly disclose a light sensor coupled to the controller and configured to measure an amount of light transmitted through the window and provide feedback to the controller for automatically or manually adjusting the quantity of at least one fluid in the cavity of the dynamic window pane.
Briggs teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a dynamic window (Fig. 1) that it would have been desirable to include a light sensor (118) coupled to the controller (116) and configured to measure an amount of light transmitted through the window (Col. 7, lines 51-67) and provide feedback to the controller for automatically or manually adjusting (Col. 7, lines 51-67) the quantity of at least one fluid in the cavity of the dynamic window pane (Col. 7, lines 51-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light sensor coupled to the controller and configured to measure an amount of light transmitted through the window and provide feedback to the controller for automatically or manually adjusting the quantity of at least one fluid in the cavity of the dynamic window pane as taught by the dynamic window system of Briggs in the dynamic window system of Borden since Briggs teaches it is known to include these features in a dynamic window system for the purpose of providing a dynamic window system that effectively and efficiently adjust light transmitted to a desired amount.
Regarding claim 11, Borden in view of Briggs discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Borden further discloses, the fluid container comprises a bladder (9) and the quantity of at least one fluid in the cavity is adjusted by changing a pressure within the bladder (Col. 3, lines 32-37 and Col. 4, lines 38-65).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden (US 5,608,995) in view of Briggs et al. (US 9,567,995) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 4,758,686).
Borden in view of Briggs remains as applied to claim 9 above.
Borden in view of Briggs does not disclose the above described smart window is used in specialty rooms including a medical operation theatre or other rooms, where absence of minimal magnetic or electric inference is a requirement by adding a grounded or earthed transparent conductive layer on any of the surface layers of the window.
Takahashi teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a dynamic window system that it would have been desirable to make the above described smart window is used in specialty rooms including a medical operation theatre or other rooms, where absence of minimal magnetic or electric inference is a requirement by adding a grounded or earthed transparent conductive layer on any of the surface layers of the window (see 1 of Figs. 1-3c and associated text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the above described smart window is used in specialty rooms including a medical operation theatre or other rooms, where absence of minimal magnetic or electric inference is a requirement by adding a grounded or earthed transparent conductive layer on any of the surface layers of the window as taught by the dynamic window system of Takahashi in the combination of Borden in view of Briggs since Takahashi teaches it is known to include these features in a dynamic window system for the purpose of providing an inexpensive and simple dynamic window system that removes/reduces unwanted electrical waves and noise.
Claims 14, 18-19 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden (US 5,608,995) as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Schleder et al. (US 2019/0346710).
Borden remains as applied to claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Borden discloses, the one or more panes comprise a double-paned or triple-paned window (see 3, 4 of Fig. 1).
Borden does not disclose at least one of the panes being a dynamic glass or kinetic glass.
Schleder teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in the system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to make at least one of the panes being a dynamic glass or kinetic glass (Para. 0003 and 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least one of the panes being a dynamic glass or kinetic glass as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Schleder in the system for operating a dynamic window of Border since Schleder teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Border in view of Schleder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schleder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to include a fluid-based smart dye-sensitized solar cell (Para. 0050), wherein the dynamic smart window (Para. 0003 and 0014) is configured to be used as a substrate for the dye- sensitized solar cell insulating glass or IG (Para. 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Schleder in the system for operating a dynamic window of Border since Schleder teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Border in view of Schleder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schleder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to make a user interface for allowing a user to manually control the properties of the dynamic smart window, including but not limited to transparency, color, and reflectivity (Para. 0028; note, discloses user input to control state(s) of the optically active material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Schleder in the system for operating a dynamic window of Border since Schleder teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 31, Border in view of Schleder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schleder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to make the dynamic window is capable of integrating with the Internet of Things (loT) and other smart home or building management systems (Para. 0028, 0046 and 0115), allowing for seamless control and automation of the dynamic window's properties based on user preferences, environmental conditions, and other factors (Para. 0028, 0046 and 0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Schleder in the system for operating a dynamic window of Border since Schleder teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 32, Border in view of Schleder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Schleder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to make the manufacturing of kinetic glass using existing IG manufacturing processes, in order to reduce the environmental impact of the production process and to create true sustainability for the circular economy for the future dynamic window products for the residential and commercial and other industries (Para. 0028 and 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Schleder in the system for operating a dynamic window of Border since Schleder teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with improved energy efficiency.
Furthermore, in regards to the limitations “manufacturing of kinetic glass using existing IG manufacturing processes”, the Examiner points out that while not objectionable, the Office reminds Applicant that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161 ; IN re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Thus, no patentable weight will be given to those process steps which do not add structural limitations to the final product. In addition, the Examiner points out that for a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden (US 5,608,995) as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Dickey et al. (US 12,591,160).
Borden remains as applied to claim 12 above.
Borden does not disclose a machine learning algorithm for predicting and adjusting the properties of the dynamic smart window based on past usage and environmental conditions, thereby improving energy efficiency and occupant comfort over time.
Dickey teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system for operating a dynamic window that it would have been desirable to include a machine learning algorithm for predicting and adjusting the properties of the dynamic smart window based on past usage and environmental conditions, thereby improving energy efficiency and occupant comfort over time (Col. 3, lines 25-40, 62-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a machine learning algorithm for predicting and adjusting the properties of the dynamic smart window based on past usage and environmental conditions, thereby improving energy efficiency and occupant comfort over time as taught by the system for operating a dynamic window of Dickey in the system for operating a dynamic window of Borden since Dickey teaches it is known to include these features in a system for operating a dynamic window for the purpose of providing a system for operating a dynamic window with efficient energy control, reduced energy consumption and increased user comfort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Egeresi (US 2007/0251164), Schwalbe (US 9,151,105) and Shalit (US 2014/0047783) discloses a dynamic window that includes a first pane, a second pane, a third pane, wherein the second pane and third pane are arranged to define a cavity between the second pane and third pane, a fluid container placed remotely or immediately coupled to one of the cavities of the panes for holding a material such as a fluid or a gas or a gel; a controller coupled to the material container, wherein the controller is configured to controllably manage one or more materials into one or more cavities through the port or ports to control a state of transmissivity, absorptivity, reflectivity, or opacity of light and power generation through the panes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/22/2026
Prosecution Insights