DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 8/25/2024.
Claims 1-17 have been submitted for examination.
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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation " the first user-configurable setting " in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As “a first user-configurable setting” is recited in claim 8, the Examiner believes this to be the intended dependence of claim 9.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klawuhn et al. (US 2018/0284555), hereinafter Klawuhn.
As per claim 1, Klawuhn teaches the following:
a method, comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with a first device and a second (see paragraph [0227] and Fig. 10, 780) device:
while the first device corresponds to a first area and the second device corresponds to a second area that is different from the first area, (see Fig. 1, paragraph [0059], tinting zones 102, 104, and 106), detecting a change in an orientation of a light source relative to a respective object. As Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0113], calculations are made as the sun’s angle changes and in paragraph [0112[ that an illuminance sensor may be used (respective object); and
in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object:
in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is a first orientation, causing a characteristic of the first device to be adjusted in a first manner without causing the characteristic of the second device to be adjusted in the first manner. As Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0060], and corresponding Fig. 1, zones 102 and 104 are in a darkened state with the sun (light source) being at a first position; and
in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is a second orientation different from the first orientation, causing the characteristic of the second device to be adjusted in the first manner without causing the characteristic of the first device to be adjusted in the first manner. As Klawuhn shows in Figs. 2 and 4, different zones may be darkened depending upon the position of the sun. Klawuhn further shows in the examples of Figs. 28A-28C of varying the darkening of windows based upon the changing position of the sun. Still further, Klawuhn shows in the flowchart of Fig. 29 that the position of the sun is calculated 2910 before tint levels are determined, whereby the flow loops around to recalculate the position of the sung and repeat the process. Therefore, Klawuhn teaches of a method where a first window is tinted while a second window is untinted at a sun’s first position and the first window is untinted and the second window is tinted at a sun’s second position.
Regarding claim 2, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
while in the first orientation, the light source impacts the first area more than the second area that is different from the second area; and while in the second orientation, the light source impacts the second area more than the first area. As Klawuhn shows in the transitions from Fig. 28A to Fig. 28B, the tinting of windows is based upon how direct sunlight affects a designated area. Therefore, similar to Fig. 28B, only a zone 2814 may be tinted should that window allow light to affect the designated area.
Regarding claim 3, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
wherein causing the characteristic of the first device to be adjusted in the first manner includes adjusting a first opacity of a first portion of the first device. As Klawuhn teaches in the abstract, “tinting” of windows is controlled.
Regarding claim 5, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object: in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, causing the characteristic of the second device to be adjusted in a second manner that is opposite of the first manner. As Klawuhn shows in Fig. 28B, one window zone may be tinted while the other untinted, i.e., the zones are given opposite settings.
Regarding claim 6, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object: in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, forgoing causing the characteristic of the second device to be adjusted. As Klawuhn shows in the transition from Fig. 28A to Fig. 28B, window zone 2814 forgoes tinting, while window zone 2812 becomes tinted.
Regarding claim 8, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
wherein a value corresponding to the characteristic of the first device is set based on a first user-configurable setting, and wherein a value corresponding to the characteristic of the second device is set based on a second user-configurable setting that is different from the first user-configurable setting. As Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0155], a user may set the mode to utilize when determining tint levels.
Regarding claim 9, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
in accordance with a determination that the first user-configurable setting indicates that the value is a first respective value, the characteristic of the first device is adjusted by a first amount in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation; and in accordance with a determination that the first user-configurable setting indicates that the value is a second respective value that is different from the first respective value, the characteristic of the first device is adjusted by a second amount that is different from the first amount in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation. As Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0055], when set to a glare reduction mode, the tint “state” is set for the different windows, where a tint “state” may be between fully tinted and untinted, i.e., tint is changed by a first or second “amount”. Further see paragraphs [0074] and [0075], where different tint states are given (T1-T4).
Regarding claim 10, Klawuhn teaches the following:
the first device has a surface. As Klawuhn teaches in the abstract, the method is directed to tintable windows, where windows have surfaces;
causing the characteristic of the first device to be adjusted in the first manner includes changing a second opacity of the surface. As Klawuhn teaches in the abstract, a tint (opacity) of a window may be adjusted; and
the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, forgoing changing a positioning of the surface of the first device. As Klawuhn shows in Fig. 1, the tint of windows is adjusted, not the position of said windows. Therefore, positioning of the windows is “forwent”.
Regarding claim 13, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
wherein the computer system is in communication with a third device that is different from the first device and the second device, the method further comprising: in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, causing a characteristic of the third device to be adjusted while causing the characteristic of the first device to be adjusted. As Klawuhn shows in Fig. 2, a plurality of window zones (202-210) may be controlled, where multiple zones may be tinted based upon the position of the sun.
Regarding claim 15, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
wherein the third device is caused to be adjusted in the first manner. As Klawuhn shows in Fig. 2, the multiple zones may be tinted (first manner).
As per claim 16, Klawuhn teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a first device and a second device, (see paragraph [0227].
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 17, Klawuhn teaches the following:
a computer system that is in communication with a first device and a second device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, (see paragraph [0227].
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klawuhn as applied to claim 1, in view of Blatchley et al. (US 2009/0174658), hereinafter Blatchley.
Regarding claim 4, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Klawuhn does not explicitly teach of adjusting an amount of space. Blatchley teaches the following:
wherein causing the characteristic of the first device to be adjusted in the first manner includes adjusting an amount of space between a second portion of the first device and a reference surface. Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0048] that a display mount may be controlled based upon detected sunlight. Blatchley further teaches in paragraph [0052] that a viewing angle may be adjusted based upon the detection, where the viewing angle is interpreted as encompassing adjusting an amount of space between a second portion of the device (display frame) and a reference surface (the viewing user). Further see paragraph [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the adjustable window control of Klawuhn to also control the adjustable display mount of Blatchley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Klawuhn teaches in paragraph [0006], a goal of the method is to improve glare control and the adjustment method of Blatchley would further such goal.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klawuhn as applied to claims 1 and 13, in view of Casey et al. (US 2018/0167547), hereinafter Casey.
Regarding claim 7, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Klawuhn does not explicitly teach of causing a second characteristic of the devices to be changed. Casey teaches the following:
further comprising: in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object:
in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, causing a second characteristic of the first device to be adjusted, wherein the second characteristic of the first device is different from the characteristic of the first device; and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the second orientation, causing a second characteristic of the second device to be adjusted, wherein the second characteristic of the second device is different from the characteristic of the second device. As Casey teaches in paragraph [0052], a window 104 may have a motorized window treatment 150 (such as blinds). Casey further teaches in paragraph [0229] that the system may utilize a visible light sensor and send commands to the load devices accordingly (motorized windows). Therefore, the system of Casey may individually lower and raise blinds to achieve a level of lighting desired by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the adjustable window control of Klawuhn to also control the motorized window treatments of Casey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Casey teaches in paragraph [0008], controlling and adjusting a plurality of different types of environmental devices benefits user in creating a more desirable environment. Furthermore, Casey teaches in paragraph [0052] that the motorized window treatment may also include an electrochromic window (such as the tintable windows of Klawuhn).
Regarding claim 14, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 13 as described above. However, Klawuhn does not explicitly teach of adjusting a third device in a manner different from the first manner. Blatchley teaches the following:
wherein the third device is caused to be adjusted in a third manner that is different from the first manner. As Casey teaches in paragraph [0052], a window 104 may have a motorized window treatment 150 (such as blinds). Casey further teaches in paragraph [0229] that the system may utilize a visible light sensor and send commands to the load devices accordingly (motorized windows). Therefore, the system of Casey may individually lower and raise blinds to achieve a level of lighting desired by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the adjustable window control of Klawuhn to also control the motorized window treatments of Casey. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Casey teaches in paragraph [0008], controlling and adjusting a plurality of different types of environmental devices benefits user in creating a more desirable environment. Furthermore, Casey teaches in paragraph [0052] that the motorized window treatment may also include an electrochromic window (such as the tintable windows of Klawuhn).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klawuhn as applied to claim 1, in view of Nagel et al. (US 2016/0203403), hereinafter Nagel.
Regarding claim 11, Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Klawuhn further teaches the following:
in response to detecting the change in orientation of the light source relative to the respective object and in accordance with a determination that the changed orientation of the light source relative to the respective object is the first orientation, causing the characteristic of the second device to be adjusted in a third manner that is different from the first manner,
However, Klawuhn does not explicitly teach of a default value. In a similar field of endeavor, Nagel teaches of controlling electrochomic windows (see abstract). Nagel further teaches in paragraph [0043], that window settings may be given default values which may later be changed by a user, e.g., a “light tint” may possess a setting of 30% tint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the adjustable window control of Klawuhn with the default values of Nagel. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because default values for any setting provide the benefit to users in not requiring the user to enter every initial value manually, where a “greatest use” value may be applied to a setting that is most popular and therefor a probable estimation of the user’s desires.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klawuhn in view of Nagel as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Shrivastava et al. (US 2017/0130523), hereinafter Shrivastava.
Regarding claim 12, modified Klawuhn teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. However, Klawuhn does not explicitly teach of gradual adjustments. In a similar field of endeavor, Shrivastava teaches of a method of control multi-zone electrochromic windows. Shrivastava further teaches the following:
the second device is gradually caused to be adjusted to the default value. As Shrivastava teaches in paragraph [0058], and corresponding Fig. 4C, window zones may be faded through tint/untint until the desired setting is reached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the adjustable window control of Klawuhn with the gradual tinting/untinting of Shrivastava. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Shrivastava teaches in paragraph [0057], such gradual effect benefits users in creating the effect of a physical shade without requiring such shade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berman et al. (US 2006/0207730), control of window shades utilizing light sensors and a central control system.
Covaro et al. (US 2010/0237695), see paragraph [0029].
Barrilleaux (US 2013/0154486), see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights