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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 19 are independent claims.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the priority benefit of US provisional application No. 63,587,222 filed on October 2, 2023, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 7, 2025, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 4, line 2, insert “one of” after “comprises”.
Claim 12, line 1, replace “a size” with “the at least one of the”.
Claim 12, line 2, replace “the compass” with “a compass”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters comprises interior illuminance levels, interior surface temperatures, mitigation of heat transfer through the building envelope system, visual comfort, environmental comfort, and acoustical performance”. If only one indoor environmental quality parameter is comprised, then how can such one indoor environmental quality parameter comprise “interior illuminance levels, interior surface temperatures, mitigation of heat transfer through the building envelope system, visual comfort, environmental comfort, and acoustical performance”? For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be construed as “wherein the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters comprises one of interior illuminance levels, interior surface temperatures, mitigation of heat transfer through the building envelope system, visual comfort, environmental comfort, and acoustical performance”. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
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, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabadkani, A., Banihashemi, S. and Hosseini, M.R., 2018, August. Daylighting and visual comfort of oriental sun responsive skins: A parametric analysis. In Building simulation (Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 663-676). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. (“Tabadkani”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tabadkani teaches:
A building envelope system comprising: Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 The first phase (“In office-type environments, where occupants typically cannot freely adjust their position and have restricted visual comfort requirements, the building skin can provide sufficient indoor daylight using either smart facade orientations or automated shades (Reinhart 2014). Therefore, the process starts with considering the configurations of an oriental Rosette module that was applied to a completely glazed south face (WWR: 89.5%) of an office space with spatial dimensions of 5 m (width), 7 m (depth), and 3 m (height), as illustrated in Fig. 4. The measured space is 7 m in depth to give the opportunity to test the Oriental Skin efficiency.”)
a plurality of shading modules for installing over one or more fenestrations of a structure, Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 The first phase [As described above.] Tabadkani: Page 672, second column (“In the third set, the influences of different material definitions assigned to Rosette, louvers and the south-faced window are extracted and depicted in Fig. 13.”) [As illustrated in FIG. 4, the rosette modules installed on the window of a building reads on “a plurality of shading modules for installing over one or more fenestrations of a structure”.]
wherein at least one of a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material of each shading module of the plurality of shading modules is determined based on optimizing one or more indoor environmental quality parameters for a geographical location of the structure and for the one or more fenestrations. Tabadkani: Abstract (“Analyses showed that the proposed approach is capable of significantly improving the shading flexibility to control daylight metrics and glare, via a full potential adaptive pattern to achieve the maximum visual comfort level based on LEEDv4 certificate.”) Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 (“Based on the responsive behavior of Rosette modules, where outer hexagonal cells of each module show the potential to deliver an interesting rate of rotation, an especially designated algorithm by the authors of this research, was linked to the Sun position, command in order to rotate Rosette outer hexagonal cells on each symmetrical axis, while sun position and its angle is changing.”) Tabadkani: Page 667, second column (“1) Implementing Rosette module on circular grid cells on the south face.”) Tabadkani: Page 668, first column (“Since the module is defined by adjustable parameters, changing the numerical values associated with each parameter can result in different shape rotations (Fig. 6). Figure 6 illustrates the different states of the modules between the unresponsive and responsive states. Figure 6(a) depicts the static Rosette modules, while Fig. 6(b) shows the responsive modules rotating from 0° to 90°….In addition to the different skin configurations and Rosette rotations, there is a transformation based on the following measures: (1) Rosette grid distance to the facade surface (a numerical range between 10 and 50 centimeters), … Although the geometry of the skin is a significant element in the overall daylight performance of a building, such geometric transformations contribute to the superior conformity to the visual comfort indices in the second phase.”) Tabadkani: Page 670, second column, section 3.3, (“Analyzing and simulating smart building facades, and the dynamic test of their daylighting performance are proven challenging in the parametric design context. The third phase covers the analysis of the developed kinetic skins in applying the angular transformations in response to the dynamic daylighting and search for an optimal solution amongst.”) Tabadkani: Page 671, second column, last paragraph (“…Rosette distance and louver depth have different impacts on indoor daylighting performance.”) [Depending on the building facade or side of the building, the shape, geometry, rotation, distance to the façade surface, the number of rosette modules applied to a face or window on a structure of a building as shown in FIG. 4 for daylighting comfort reads on “wherein at least one of a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material of each shading module of the plurality of shading modules is determined based on optimizing one or more indoor environmental quality parameters for a geographical location of the structure and for the one or more fenestrations”.]
Regarding claim 2, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, comprising an optimization algorithm for optimizing the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters, wherein the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters comprise maximizing spatial daylight autonomy (SDA), minimizing annual sun exposure (ASE), and minimizing daylight glare probability. Tabadkani: Page 665, first column (“In addition to UDI, DA and DAcon calculations, and in order to analyze daylight autonomy design precisely, daylighting is analyzed using two more codified metrics in LEED v4. These are spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and annual sun exposure (ASE) metrics, which form a clear picture of daylight spaces and visual comfort ultimately (Carlucci et al. 2015). According to Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA 2012), sDA describes how much an interior environment receives sufficient daylight of 300 lx in more than 50% of its occupied hours (Pellegrino et al. 2017).”) Tabadkani: Page 674, first column, conclusion (“The results showed an improvement in the performance of dynamic facades in comparison with the static systems, with an increase in sDA, while minimizing 10% for visual discomfort (ASE) and keeping an indoor glare-free environment for occupants.”)
Regarding claim 4, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters comprises interior illuminance levels, interior surface temperatures, mitigation of heat transfer through the building envelope system, visual comfort, environmental comfort, and acoustical performance. Tabadkani: Abstract [As described in claim 1.] Tabadkani: Page 663, first column, section 1 (“Daylight, however, can cause visual discomfort like glare and unwanted reflections, and affect the thermal balance of rooms through overheating (Pauley 2004). Therefore, the most ambitious challenge for designers in an effective daylighting design is to keep the balance between maximizing daylight harvesting and risks control of potential discomfort (Banihashemi et al. 2012).”) Tabadkani: Page 664, second column (“…the present study aims at constructing an innovative approach towards an acclimated skin pattern for an office space in Iran, in which annual daylighting and visual comfort (VC) performance are calculated through parametric modeling principles. The approach draws upon parametric design principles, where generative features are grounded in the sun responsive shading, validated through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED v4) certification.”) Tabadkani: Page 665, first column (“These are spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and annual sun exposure (ASE) metrics, which form a clear picture of daylight spaces and visual comfort ultimately (Carlucci et al. 2015). …In addition, with respect to ASE and DA, DA contains no upper limit on illumination level, therefore, ASE provides the balance as a proxy for direct sunlight, an indicator of potential illuminance problems where it should be less than 10% during occupied hours.”)
Regarding claim 5, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein one or more of a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material of each shading module of the plurality of shading modules is selected responsive to climatological parameters at a location of the structure. Tabadkani: Page 664, second column (“…the present study aims at constructing an innovative approach towards an acclimated skin pattern for an office space in Iran, in which annual daylighting and visual comfort (VC) performance are calculated through parametric modeling principles. The approach draws upon parametric design principles, where generative features are grounded in the sun responsive shading, validated through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED v4) certification.”) Tabadkani: Page 668, second column, Section 3.2 (“DIVA-for-Grasshopper provides the advanced shading mode as the climatic metrics and it changes the parameters according to the user’s threshold illuminance setting. The designer allows some skin layers to be controlled automatically, according to the amount of the light on a defined grid-based task area presumably with 80 centimeters height in this research, as illustrated in Fig. 7.”)
Regarding claim 9, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of shading modules comprise a closed structural shape further comprising a plurality of interconnected geometric elements. Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 The first phase; and Page 672, second column; and FIGS. 3 and 6 [As described in claim 1.] [The configuration of each rosette module reads on “a closed structural shape further comprising a plurality of interconnected geometric elements”.]
Regarding claim 11, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein the fenestration comprises a window, a door, or another surface having different thermal transmittance or light transmittance properties than other regions of the structure. Tabadkani: FIG. 6 and page 672, second column, last paragraph (“In the third set, the influences of different material definitions assigned to Rosette, louvers and the south-faced window are extracted and depicted in Fig. 13.”) Tabadkani: Page 673, second column, first paragraph (“With this respect, double glazing and low-emissivity coating windows can be of top alternatives in order to prevent excessive heat gain or loss during the year …”) [The window reads on “the fenestration”.]
Regarding claim 12, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material of each one of the plurality of shading modules is dependent on the compass direction of the fenestration. Tabadkani: Abstract; Page 667, first and second columns; Page 668, first column, Section 3.1; and Page 671, second column, last paragraph [As described in claim 1.] Tabadkani: Page 664, first column, last paragraph (“Accordingly, window to wall ratio (WWR) and shading devices are critical physical aspects to establish a harmonization between the solar passive strategies and building envelope components, to keep the balance between sufficient daylight and visual discomfort…”)
Regarding claim 13, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein the structure comprises a plurality of surfaces each having a different compass direction, and wherein identically-shaped shading modules are installed on the one or more fenestrations in one of the plurality of surfaces. Tabadkani: Abstract; Page 667, first and second columns; Page 668, first column, Section 3.1; and Page 671, second column, last paragraph [As described in claim 1.] Tabadkani: Page 664, first column, last paragraph (“Accordingly, window to wall ratio (WWR) and shading devices are critical physical aspects to establish a harmonization between the solar passive strategies and building envelope components, to keep the balance between sufficient daylight and visual discomfort…”) Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, first full paragraph (“In office-type environments, where occupants typically cannot freely adjust their position and have restricted visual comfort requirements, the building skin can provide sufficient indoor daylight using either smart facade orientations or automated shades (Reinhart 2014). Therefore, the process starts with considering the configurations of an oriental Rosette module that was applied to a completely glazed south face (WWR: 89.5%) of an office space with spatial dimensions of 5 m (width), 7 m (depth), and 3 m (height), as illustrated in Fig. 4. The measured space is 7 m in depth to give the opportunity to test the Oriental Skin efficiency.”)
Regarding claim 15, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein a plurality of shading modulus on a first surface of the structure comprises differently shaped modules on a second surface of the structure, the first and second surfaces having a different compass direction. Tabadkani: Page 667, Section 3.1, first and second columns (“Based on the responsive behavior of Rosette modules, where outer hexagonal cells of each module show the potential to deliver an interesting rate of rotation, an especially designated algorithm by the authors of this research, was linked to the Sun position, command in order to rotate Rosette outer hexagonal cells on each symmetrical axis, while sun position and its angle is changing. The sun position experimentation was constructed through a polar algorithm where it takes time parameters as the input variables and results in sun vectors directions as the output variables for evaluating the distance and angle to apply on Rosette rotation. The sun position diagram algorithm consists of two main steps, as depicted in Fig. 5, and discussed below: 1) Importing time parameters falling to three separate values (Fig. 5) a) Hour; that will be extracted from the minimum and maximum available total radiation during official working hours (8 AM to 6 PM), b) Day; this input is considered constant in whole simulations on 21st of each month, c) Month; it has been selected seasonally (March, June, September and December), 2) Extracting sun vectors directions via Ladybug to link the sun position determination with Rosette central cells …2) Importing a command to calculate rotational function of modules with respect to the sun position. 3) Measuring the distance between the Rosette central node and the Sun position resulted from Fig. 5. 4) Extracting maximum and minimum distances. 5) Selecting a rotation domain between 0 and 90 degrees for the Rosette hexagonal modules. 6) Remapping the distance values with rotation values, where the higher distance and angle figures of Rosette central cells overtake the higher rotation values. 7) Creating a symmetrical axis on each hexagonal cell.”) Tabadkani: Page 668, first column, second paragraph (“In addition to the different skin configurations and Rosette rotations, there is a transformation based on the following measures: (1) Rosette grid distance to the facade surface (a numerical range between 10 and 50 centimeters), and (2) horizontal louver depth (a numerical range between 50 and 100 centimeters), in which it justifies maximum Rosette distance value is the minimum louver depth, while the possibility of having the Rosette modules beyond the louvers is zero.”) Tabadkani: Page 670, second column, section 3.3, (“Analyzing and simulating smart building facades, and the dynamic test of their daylighting performance are proven challenging in the parametric design context. The third phase covers the analysis of the developed kinetic skins in applying the angular transformations in response to the dynamic daylighting and search for an optimal solution amongst.”) [Depending on the building facade or side of the building, configuring the rosette modules including distance and rotation reads on “a plurality of shading modulus on a first surface of the structure comprises differently shaped modules on a second surface of the structure, the first and second surfaces having a different compass direction”.]
Regarding claim 16, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein one or both of an area covered by the plurality of shading modules and the shape of each shading module of the plurality of shading modules is determined by a facing direction of a surface of the structure on which the plurality of shading modules is mounted. Tabadkani: Page 664, first column, last paragraph (“Accordingly, window to wall ratio (WWR) and shading devices are critical physical aspects to establish a harmonization between the solar passive strategies and building envelope components, to keep the balance between sufficient daylight and visual discomfort…”) Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, first full paragraph (“In office-type environments, where occupants typically cannot freely adjust their position and have restricted visual comfort requirements, the building skin can provide sufficient indoor daylight using either smart facade orientations or automated shades (Reinhart 2014). Therefore, the process starts with considering the configurations of an oriental Rosette module that was applied to a completely glazed south face (WWR: 89.5%) of an office space with spatial dimensions of 5 m (width), 7 m (depth), and 3 m (height), as illustrated in Fig. 4. The measured space is 7 m in depth to give the opportunity to test the Oriental Skin efficiency.”) Tabadkani: Page 668, first column and FIGS. 6 and 7 (“Since the module is defined by adjustable parameters, changing the numerical values associated with each parameter can result in different shape rotations (Fig. 6). Figure 6 illustrates the different states of the modules between the unresponsive and responsive states. Figure 6(a) depicts the static Rosette modules, while Fig. 6(b) shows the responsive modules rotating from 0° to 90°. In line with Rosette modules for delivering sufficient uniform indirect daylight into the room, horizontal shade louvers were deployed among Rosette modules to control excessive unwanted daylight.”)
Regarding claim 20, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 20 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the one or more indoor environmental quality parameters comprise maximizing spatial daylight autonomy (SDA), minimizing annual sun exposure (ASE), and minimizing daylight glare probability. Tabadkani: Page 670, first column (“The design objectives are focused on the five elements of kinetic skin, allowing for sufficient daylight, maximizing sDA, minimizing ASE, and ticking for LEEDv4 certificate. Rotation motion, distance to facade and radiance material constitute the model driving parameters of Rosette modules. Glass material, louver material and louver translation motion are the factors of the model driving parameters.”) Tabadkani: Abstract (“Analyses showed that the proposed approach is capable of significantly improving the shading flexibility to control daylight metrics and glare, via a full potential adaptive pattern to achieve the maximum visual comfort level based on LEEDv4 certificate.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabadkani in view of Özdemir, H. and Çakmak, B.Y., 2022. Evaluation of daylight and glare quality of office spaces with flat and dynamic shading system facades in hot arid climate. Journal of Daylighting, 9(2), pp.197-208. (“Ozdemir”).
Regarding claim 3, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 3 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 3. However, Ozdemir describes an evaluation of daylight and glare quality of office spaces with flat and dynamic shading system facades. Ozdemir teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 2, wherein the optimization algorithm minimizes transfer of acoustical energy from outside the structure to inside the structure. Ozdemir: Page 197, second column, Section 1 (“The parameter that is effective in addressing the daylight factor in a building as part of the design can be defined as the building envelope. By integrating the daylight factor into the architecture, optimized designs can be realized to increase the comfort performance of people. For this hypothesis, it should be correct to use the appropriate amount of daylight while avoiding excessive glare. Accordingly, occupancy-decency ratio (window-wall) and shading elements are critical physical elements to ensure a harmony between solar passive strategies and building envelope components, maintaining the balance between sufficient daylight and visual decency [6]. The main functions of the building envelope are to control the influence of the climate, to ensure visual comfort by controlling daylight, and to guarantee the creation of a healthy environment for the user by reducing noise to an acceptable level [7]. In parallel, the design of the facade, which forms the envelope of the building, allows the provision of suitable air conditioning and lighting conditions for the structure with passive and active systems. Design of passive facade system includes the selection of types, sizes, materials and configurations for glazing, shading, insulation, and thermal systems in the perimeter zone. Active systems refer to the design of control algorithms and the control operations that directly impact the function, position, performance, and the physical properties of facades that affect the whole building energy consumption [8].”) Ozdemir: Page 198, second column, Section 2 (“Rhino and its algorithm-generating plugin Grasshopper were chosen to create the parametric principles so that many parameters could be incorporated into the architectural design.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Ozdemir before them, for the optimization algorithm minimizes transfer of acoustical energy from outside the structure to inside the structure because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on optimizing environmental parameters.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to contribute to improving the physiological state of employees in workplaces as well as increasing their productivity and significantly improve the flexibility of shading to control daylight measurements and glare, achieving the maximum level of visual comfort based on the LEEDv4 certificate. Ozdemir Page 197 Abstract and first column, Section 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabadkani in view of Bessoudo, M., Tzempelikos, A., Athienitis, A.K. and Zmeureanu, R., 2010. Indoor thermal environmental conditions near glazed facades with shading devices–Part I: Experiments and building thermal model. Building and environment, 45(11), pp.2506-2516. (“Bessoudo”), and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0050469 A1 to Blanchard et al. (“Blanchard”).
Regarding claim 6, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 5, from which claim 6 depends. Tabadkani further teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 5, wherein the climatological parameters comprise average air temperature, surface temperature, operative temperature, and solar radiation, wherein the operative temperature comprises an average of the air and surface temperatures. Tabadkani: Page 668, second column, Section 3.2 (“As illustrated in Fig. 7, the mock-up room has a double skin facade with a WWR value of around 90%. The louvers have also been set up on the ground to evaluate how louvers can block the sunlight and interact with Rosette modules to reflect to the interior spaces.”) Tabadkani: Page 670 (“In addition, the main driving parameters are kinetic Rosette pattern based on the sun angle…”)
Tabadkani does not expressly teach that the parameters include average air temperature, surface temperature, operative temperature. However, Bessoudo describes indoor environmental conditions. Bessoudo teaches: wherein the climatological parameters comprise average air temperature, surface temperature, operative temperature, and solar radiation,… Bessoudo: Abstract (“This paper presents an experimental study of indoor thermal environment near a full-scale glass facade with different types of shading devices under varying climatic conditions in winter. Interior … temperature, operative temperature and radiant temperature asymmetry were measured for façade sections with roller shades and venetian blinds at different positions. Interior glass surface temperatures can be high during sunny days with low outdoor temperature. Shading systems significantly improved operative temperature and radiant temperature asymmetry during cold sunny days, depending on their properties and tilt angle.”) Bessoudo: Page 2509, second column (“Each of the following graphs presents the measured variation of weather parameters (outside temperature and solar radiation), indoor surface temperatures (glazing, shade/blind), room air temperature, operative temperature and radiant temperature asymmetry (between front efacing the window and back efacing the room) for each studied case respectively during clear and cloudy representative days in winter.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Bessoudo before them, for the climatological parameters comprise average air temperature, surface temperature, operative temperature, and solar radiation because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on optimizing environmental parameters.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to contribute to assess of indoor environmental conditions with different building envelope and shading properties, façade location and orientation. Bessoudo Abstract.
Tabadkani and Bessoudo do not expressly teach that the operative temperature comprises an average of the air and surface temperatures. However, Blanchard describes wall covering for thermal and acoustic comfort. Blanchard teaches:
… wherein the operative temperature comprises an average of the air and surface temperatures. Blanchard: Paragraph [0008] (“The thermal comfort of a room or building, contrary to what might be thought, does not come down simply to a pleasant air temperature. There are two standards that define thermal comfort, these being the standard ISO7730 and the standard ISO1525. These two standards define an operative temperature, also sometimes referred to as perceived temperature, which is the equivalent of a weighted mean between the air temperature and the radiant temperature (temperature of the walls in the room). The operative temperature is defined by the following formula: T.sub.operative=.alpha..times.T.sub.air+(1-.alpha.).times.T.sub.radiant, in which the coefficient .alpha. represents the thermal contribution from convection. Its value is generally between 0.4 and 0.5, which means that the radiant temperature makes an equal, if not greater, contribution to the thermal comfort of a room than the air temperature.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani, Bessoudo, and Blanchard before them, for the operative temperature comprises an average of the air and surface temperatures because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on optimizing environmental parameters.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination as operative temperature is recognized to be a thermal environment indicator defined by the average air and surface temperatures. Blanchard Paragraph [0008].
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabadkani in view of Wyatt et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0061399 A1) (“Wyatt”).
Regarding claim 7, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 7. However, Wyatt describes an energy informed modeling (EIM). Wyatt teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein the geographical location comprises a latitude of the structure. Wyatt: Paragraph [0079] (“According to an embodiment, EIM takes into account one or more of the following: historical data related to the location, including latitude, of the building; local weather patterns; general climate data; location-specific temperature; weather data; solar data; orientation; location; occupancy rate; building insulation values; ventilation and infiltration (economizer, air-change rate & use); exterior fenestration (SHGC, U-value, r-value, area ratio); shades implementation (fixed, moveable, size & orient, manual vs automated); and component configuration.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Wyatt before them, for the geographical location to comprise a latitude of the structure because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination so that EIM is used to optimize roof, window, door and building composition to maintain an interior temperature of 21-24 degrees Celsius year-round with minimal energy expenditure, according to some embodiments in some buildings. Wyatt Paragraph [0079].
Regarding independent claim 19, Tabadkani teaches:
…
optimizing one or more indoor environmental quality parameters by determining one or more structural parameters of each shading module of a plurality of shading modules to be installed over fenestrations in a structure, wherein the structural parameters comprise a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material, and further considering a geographical location of the structure and Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 The first phase (“In office-type environments, where occupants typically cannot freely adjust their position and have restricted visual comfort requirements, the building skin can provide sufficient indoor daylight using either smart facade orientations or automated shades (Reinhart 2014). Therefore, the process starts with considering the configurations of an oriental Rosette module that was applied to a completely glazed south face (WWR: 89.5%) of an office space with spatial dimensions of 5 m (width), 7 m (depth), and 3 m (height), as illustrated in Fig. 4. The measured space is 7 m in depth to give the opportunity to test the Oriental Skin efficiency.”) Tabadkani: Page 672, second column (“In the third set, the influences of different material definitions assigned to Rosette, louvers and the south-faced window are extracted and depicted in Fig. 13.”) Tabadkani: Abstract (“Analyses showed that the proposed approach is capable of significantly improving the shading flexibility to control daylight metrics and glare, via a full potential adaptive pattern to achieve the maximum visual comfort level based on LEEDv4 certificate.”) Tabadkani: Page 667, first column, Section 3.1 (“Based on the responsive behavior of Rosette modules, where outer hexagonal cells of each module show the potential to deliver an interesting rate of rotation, an especially designated algorithm by the authors of this research, was linked to the Sun position, command in order to rotate Rosette outer hexagonal cells on each symmetrical axis, while sun position and its angle is changing.”) Tabadkani: Page 667, second column (“1) Implementing Rosette module on circular grid cells on the south face.”) Tabadkani: Page 668, first column (“Since the module is defined by adjustable parameters, changing the numerical values associated with each parameter can result in different shape rotations (Fig. 6). Figure 6 illustrates the different states of the modules between the unresponsive and responsive states. Figure 6(a) depicts the static Rosette modules, while Fig. 6(b) shows the responsive modules rotating from 0° to 90°….In addition to the different skin configurations and Rosette rotations, there is a transformation based on the following measures: (1) Rosette grid distance to the facade surface (a numerical range between 10 and 50 centimeters), … Although the geometry of the skin is a significant element in the overall daylight performance of a building, such geometric transformations contribute to the superior conformity to the visual comfort indices in the second phase.”) Tabadkani: Page 670, second column, section 3.3, (“Analyzing and simulating smart building facades, and the dynamic test of their daylighting performance are proven challenging in the parametric design context. The third phase covers the analysis of the developed kinetic skins in applying the angular transformations in response to the dynamic daylighting and search for an optimal solution amongst.”) Tabadkani: Page 671, second column, last paragraph (“…Rosette distance and louver depth have different impacts on indoor daylighting performance.”) [As illustrated in FIG. 4, the rosette modules installed on the window of a building reads on “a plurality of shading modules for installing over one or more fenestrations of a structure”. Depending on the building facade or side of the building, the shape, geometry, rotation, distance to the façade surface, the number of rosette modules applied to a face or window on a structure of a building as shown in FIG. 4 for daylighting comfort reads on “optimizing one or more indoor environmental quality parameters by determining one or more structural parameters of each shading module of a plurality of shading modules to be installed over fenestrations in a structure, wherein the structural parameters comprise a size, shape, geometry, orientation, number, placement, and material, and further considering a geographical location of the structure …”.]
a compass direction of each fenestration. Tabadkani: Abstract; Page 667, first and second columns; Page 668, first column, Section 3.1; and Page 671, second column, last paragraph [As previously described.] Tabadkani: Page 664, first column, last paragraph (“Accordingly, window to wall ratio (WWR) and shading devices are critical physical aspects to establish a harmonization between the solar passive strategies and building envelope components, to keep the balance between sufficient daylight and visual discomfort…”)
Tabadkani does not expressly teach “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a processor perform acts comprising:…”. However, Wyatt describes an energy informed modeling (EIM). Wyatt teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a processor perform acts comprising: … Wyatt: Paragraph [0023] (“In accordance with an aspect, there is provided the devices, assembly, system, method, computer-implemented method, and computer-implemented system, and non-transitory computer readable medium implementing one or more or all of the features described herein.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Wyatt before them, to include a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by a processor perform acts comprising because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination to perform or implement the algorithms described in Tabadkani in a non-transitory computer readable medium. Wyatt Paragraph [0023].
Claims 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabadkani in view of Forbis et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0191262 A1) (“Forbis”).
Regarding claim 8, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 8. However, Forbis describes modular panels. Forbis teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of shading modules resist wind-blown objects and limits heat transfer through the plurality of shading modules. Forbis: Paragraph [0002] (“The present invention relates to a unique, modular panel that has significant insulating and protective characteristics along with many uses/applications in various industries. The modular panel of the present invention serves as a new type of “shade panel” (which alone, or in combination with other like or identical panels, creates a new type of “shade structure” or “shading device”). Additionally, the panel of the present invention can be utilized as an improved type of windbreak panel, a privacy panel, and as a greatly improved impact protection panel. The innovative panels of the present invention represent a significant improvement over previously-available technologies or products primarily due to their enhanced performance in regard to heat blocking capacity, hail/impact protection, and wind blocking or deflection capability.”) Forbis: Paragraph [0004] (“The modular panel of the present invention serves as a new type of “shade panel” (which alone or in combination with other like or identical panels create a new type of “shade structure” or “shading device”).”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Forbis before them, for each one of the plurality of shading modules of Tabadkani to resist wind-blown objects and limits heat transfer through the plurality of shading modules because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination because they would help protect, and provide comfort for, people, plants, crops, animals, vehicles, buildings, and more. They help create cool roofs, cool walls, cool pavements, and cooler mechanical equipment, as well. Forbis Paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 17, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 17. However, Forbis describes modular panels installed on windows. Forbis teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of shading modules is spaced apart from the fenestration such that air between the fenestration and each one of the plurality of shading modules provides insulative properties. Forbis: Paragraph [0010] (“Multiple finished panels may be “stacked” together vertically so that there are, effectively, four layers of fabric/material (or more) pulled over two frames with two resulting air spaces. This would be especially useful for applications in which much insulation is needed or desired from a panel such as the new panel described herein. Additionally, such “stacked” panels may incorporate a spacer or another means of creating a slight separation between them to give an added air space between them (rather than having them rest exactly one upon the other). The panels of the present invention provide new and unique, multipurpose, additional insulation/protection options for use on/around building envelopes as well as for many other valuable uses in industries outside of the building construction industry.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Forbis before them, for each one of the plurality of shading modules of Tabadkani to be spaced apart from the fenestration such that air between the fenestration and each one of the plurality of shading modules provides insulative properties because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination to provide new and unique, multipurpose, additional insulation/protection options for use on/around building envelopes as well as for many other valuable uses in industries outside of the building construction industry. Forbis Paragraph [0010]
Regarding claim 18, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 18. However, Forbis describes modular panels. Forbis teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein a material and placement of each shading module of the plurality of shading modules reduces wind load exerted on the fenestrations of the structure. Forbis: Paragraph [0002] (“The present invention relates to a unique, modular panel that has significant insulating and protective characteristics along with many uses/applications in various industries. The modular panel of the present invention serves as a new type of “shade panel” (which alone, or in combination with other like or identical panels, creates a new type of “shade structure” or “shading device”). Additionally, the panel of the present invention can be utilized as an improved type of windbreak panel, a privacy panel, and as a greatly improved impact protection panel. The innovative panels of the present invention represent a significant improvement over previously-available technologies or products primarily due to their enhanced performance in regard to heat blocking capacity, hail/impact protection, and wind blocking or deflection capability.”) Forbis: Paragraph [0004] (“The modular panel of the present invention serves as a new type of “shade panel” (which alone or in combination with other like or identical panels create a new type of “shade structure” or “shading device”).”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Forbis before them, for each one of the plurality of shading modules of Tabadkani to reduce wind load exerted on the fenestrations of the structure because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination because they would help protect, and provide comfort for, people, plants, crops, animals, vehicles, buildings, and more. They help create cool roofs, cool walls, cool pavements, and cooler mechanical equipment, as well. Forbis Paragraph [0002].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabadkani in view of Pan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2013/0304427 A1) (“Pan”).
Regarding claim 14, Tabadkani teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 14 depends. Tabadkani does not expressly teach the features of claim 14. However, Pan describes decorative modules on windows. Pan teaches:
The building envelope system of claim 1, wherein a material of one or more of the shading modules of the plurality of shading modules comprises aluminum. Pan: Paragraph [0033] (“The present invention is a further improvement on the prior art in that it integrates various … decorative modules within each cladding unit frame to maximize energy savings and improve air quality, while providing a variety of aesthetic options.”) Pan: Paragraph [0038] (“A variety of modules are available to be incorporated into each unit frame, including thin and high R-value lightweight insulation; …aluminum, corrugated aluminum…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tabadkani and Pan before them, for a material of one or more of the shading modules of the plurality of shading modules comprises aluminum because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this combination to maximize energy savings and improve air quality, while providing a variety of aesthetic options. Pan Paragraph [0033].
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art (see Tabadkani, A., Banihashemi, S. and Hosseini, M.R., 2018, August. Daylighting and visual comfort of oriental sun responsive skins: A parametric analysis. In Building simulation (Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 663-676). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.; Özdemir, H. and Çakmak, B.Y., 2022. Evaluation of daylight and glare quality of office spaces with flat and dynamic shading system facades in hot arid climate. Journal of Daylighting, 9(2), pp.197-208.; Bessoudo, M., Tzempelikos, A., Athienitis, A.K. and Zmeureanu, R., 2010. Indoor thermal environmental conditions near glazed facades with shading devices–Part I: Experiments and building thermal model. Building and environment, 45(11), pp.2506-2516.; Wyatt et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0061399 A1); Forbis et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0191262 A1); Pan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2013/0304427 A1); US Patent Publication No. 2015/0050469 A1 to Blanchard et al.; CN 111441705 A to Han et al.; and US Patent Publication No. 2014/0166219 A1 to Chen) individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “wherein each one of the plurality of interconnected structural elements comprises a triangle,” as recited in claim 10. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2014/0166219 A1 to Chen describes providing a covering device and a coupling module of the covering device, which provides the window or door both functions of heat insulation and shading. It further makes the job of mounting and taking off the covering device easier.
CN 111441705 A to Han et al. Describes a building self-adaptive skin shading system capable of sensing user behaviors and a control method, wherein the method comprises the steps of installing the building self-adaptive skin shading system and inputting user parameters; operating the building self-adaptive skin shading system, shooting indoor images, and determining grid numbers of risk grids with glare risks and insufficient illumination risks according to the indoor images; determining each skin unit to be adjusted and the corresponding light transmission amount to be adjusted by combining the grid number of the risk grid and the corresponding relation between the skin number and the grid number, and generating a corresponding sun shading adjustment instruction; in response to the sunshade adjustment instruction, corresponding steering engines in each skin unit to be adjusted respectively drive the sunshade pieces to rotate, so that the light transmission quantity to be adjusted is changed, and the indoor light environment is adjusted in a self-adaptive manner. The invention can dynamically adjust the indoor light environment to meet the preset lighting and anti-dazzle index requirements, effectively save the building energy consumption and reasonably utilize natural light resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights