DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 06 January 2025, 08 May 2025, 08 April 2026 have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the Claims filed on 12 December 2024, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claims 2-21 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of 17/194,795 (now US patent # 12,147,142) and has been accorded the benefit of the original priority date(s) for those portions which find support in the earlier filed applications. (Examiner notes 17/194,795 is a continuation in part of said earlier filed applications.)
Due to the extensive related family, Examiner requests Applicant’s Assistance in the event that earlier support is inadvertently missed with respect to validity of prior art for one or more rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s duty to disclose relevant information to the office under 37 CFR 1.56(a). 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 provide a mechanism by which applicants may comply with that duty. The rules do not require applicant to file unreviewed or irrelevant documentation. IDS submissions, like other submissions, are subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 10.18 which requires that an IDS be reviewed to assure its submission does not cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of examination. This would be considered in bad faith. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1184, 33 USPQ2nd 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“burying a particularly material reference in a prior art statement containing a multiplicity of other references can be probative of bad faith”). See MPEP 2001.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004.13.
Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work. See Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
The Examiner further notes that the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), fail(s) to indicate the relevance of each item listed. Given the large number of items listed on the IDS document(s), the Office respectfully requests the cooperation of the Applicant in providing a concise explanation of relevance of each corresponding reference listed on the IDS document(s) relating to examination of the instant application (e.g. pertinent paragraphs, columns, line numbers, drawings, etc.). Doing so would help ensure that information relevant to the validity of any issued patent is not overlooked.
It is noted that it is impractical for the Examiner to review the references thoroughly in view of the number of references cited. By signing the accompanying IDS document(s), the examiner is acknowledging the submission of the document(s) and indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Apparent extraneous word “and” in claim 19 line 4
Claim fails to conclude with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-10 and 15-17 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a remote master network controller” and the limitation “a remote master controller”. It is ambiguous if these are the same or different device. One of ordinary skill would be uncertain as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 each recite the limitation "the system" in the first line, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which component may be “the system” as the antecedent claims recite multiple assemblages which one of ordinary skill in the art would regard as being “systems” of components.
Regarding claims 3-10 these claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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.
(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) 2, 6-10, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrivastava, US Pg-Pub 2015/0116811.
Examiner notes for clarity of the record that Shrivastava appears to be commonly owned at the time of filing; however as the reference appears to have been published more than a year before the earliest entitled priority date, the reference is nevertheless prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) (see 35 USC 102(b)(1)).
Regarding Claim 2, Shrivastava discloses:
A system (see fig. 1) comprising: a building ([0036] Structures which may house optically switchable products controlled by applications disclosed herein include rooms, buildings (including multi-room buildings)”) including a network of electrochromic windows (Windows 117, see fig. 1, [0047] “windows 117a, 117b, 117c, and 117d.”) and window controllers (Window Controllers 113, 115, see e.g. [0047] “low level window controller 115a directly controls windows 117a, 117b…”) and at least one network controller; (Fig. 1 “Network Window Controller 103”)
And a remote master network controller; (Fig. 1, [0044] “a remote device 111 to give a user 119 control over the optical state of one or more switchable windows”)
wherein the network controller is configured to: communicate with the window controllers over a local data bus; (fig. 1, [0044] “network 101”)
and communicate with a remote master controller by way of an internet protocol. (fig. 1, cloud 109, [0055] “the remote device 111 communicates with network-wide window controller 103 via a wireless link through the Internet (cloud 109)”)
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites substantively the same subject matter as claim 2 above, except embodied as a building. Mutatis mutandis, this claim is likewise anticipated by the disclosure of Shrivastava for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6, Shrivastava discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Shrivastava further discloses:
wherein the building includes a building management system (BMS) (fig. 1 “Building Management System 105”)
and the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the network of electrochromic windows by way of one or both of the BMS and the network controller. (fig. 1, cloud 109, [0055] “the remote device 111 communicates with network-wide window controller 103 via a wireless link through the Internet (cloud 109)”)
Regarding Claim 7, Shrivastava discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Shrivastava further discloses:
wherein the building includes a building management system (BMS) (“Building Management system 105”, see [0055])
and the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the building only by way of the BMS. ([0055] “In some embodiments the remote device communicates directly… with the building management system 105, which in turn communicates with the network window controller 103 during operation of the window control application. In such embodiments, the building management system 105 may itself play a role in the application or in providing information needed by the application.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Shrivastava discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Shrivastava further discloses:
wherein the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the network of electrochromic windows only by way of the network controller, irrespective of whether or not the building includes a building management system. ([0055] “the remote device may communicated directly… with the window controller 103. … In the depicted embodiment [nb. See fig. 1], the remote device 111 communicates with network-wide window controller 103 via a wireless link through the Internet (cloud 109) and router 107.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Shrivastava discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Shrivastava further discloses:
wherein the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the window controllers by way of an application programming interface. ([0193] “In certain implementations, an application programming interface (API) is provided for window control applications. Such API may be used to develop applications for various remote device platforms including Microsoft Windows.TM., iPhone, and Android. Through such API internal developers, 3rd party developers, and systems integrators can implement new applications or extend existing applications to monitor and control optically switchable devices on a network.”)
Regarding Claims 10 and 21, Shrivastava discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 18, respectively;
Shrivastava further discloses:
(Claim 10 representative) wherein the network controller is configured to: send data about functioning of the network to the remote master controller; (e.g. [0134] “[0134] Continuing downward in control the status panel 420, there is a status subpanel 430 which depicts the current status of the window or windows under the currently selected group. In this example, each available level of tint, and there are four of them in this example, has its own icon. Typically, only one of these will be accentuated at any given time, and this indicates in which of the available levels of tint the window currently resides. When the window is transitioning from one level of tint to another level of tint, there may be in arrow, as shown in the depicted embodiment, illustrating the transition from one state to another state. When the window(s) reaches the selected level of tint, the arrow disappears.”)
and receive data and/or control messages, from the remote master controller. ([0060] “FIG. 1B depicts a situation where user 119 interacts with remote device 111 and elects to directly tint windows 117a and 117d. The remote device presents an application function that allows a user to manually adjust the optical properties of one or more windows”)
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagel et al., US Pg-Pub 2016/0202589.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagel discloses:
A system (see fig. 1) comprising: a building ([0013] “living, working or commercial spaces, such as an apartment, house, an office, a building” ) including a network (fig. 1 dashed and dotted lines) of electrochromic windows (fig. 1 [0014] “smart window 102”) and window controllers (fig. 1 [0014] “intelligent window controller 104”) and at least one network controller; ([0014] “command and communication device 106”)
And a remote master network controller; (Fourth control system 120 in server 108)
wherein the network controller is configured to: communicate with the window controllers over a local data bus; (wireless interface 128, wired interface 130, [0014] “Each intelligent window controller 104 is wirelessly connected to the command and communication device 106… in further embodiments a wired connection could be used.”)
and communicate with a remote master controller by way of an internet protocol. (Network interface 134, [0014] “network 110, such as the global communication network known as the Internet.”)
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites substantively the same subject matter as claim 2 above, except embodied as a building. Mutatis mutandis, this claim is likewise anticipated by the disclosure of Nagel for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Nagel further discloses:
wherein the remote master controller is configured to reside in a cloud-based system (fig. 1, [0014] “The server 108 could include e.g…. one or more virtual servers”) including one or both of computational and data storage resources. (ibid. [0014] “…implemented with physical computing resources”)
Regarding Claim 8, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Nagel further discloses:
wherein the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the network of electrochromic windows only by way of the network controller, irrespective of whether or not the building includes a building management system. (Nagel does not disclose a building automation system; and discloses the ‘remote master network controller’ (“server 108”) being communicatively coupled with the ‘network controller’ (“command and communication device 106”) and therefore reads on the claim.)
Regarding Claims 10 and 21, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 18, respectively;
Nagel further discloses:
(Claim 10 representative) wherein the network controller is configured to: send data about functioning of the network to the remote master controller; ([0017] “an intelligent window controller 104 could relay a message or other communication, as could the command and communication device 106. In some embodiments, messages or communications can be addressed to any component or device in the system, or broadcast to multiple devices, etc. This could be accomplished using packets for communication”)
and receive data and/or control messages, from the remote master controller. ([0016] “the command and communication device 106 has … a rules engine 132… The rules engine 132 uses information from the network 110, which can include direction from the fourth control system 120 in the server 108, … to create, populate, modify, or adapt various rules for operation of the smart windows 102”)
Regarding Claim 11, Nagel discloses:
A cloud-based system (fig. 1, [0014] “The server 108 could include e.g…. one or more virtual servers”) comprising one or both of computational and data storage resources, (ibid. [0014] “…implemented with physical computing resources”)
wherein: the cloud-based system is configured to: be communicatively coupled with a plurality of remote sites, ([0015] “multiple occupant buildings” see also claim 1 “plurality of buildings”) each site including a respective network of switchable optical devices and at least one associated network controller; ([0015] “Larger systems, e.g., for multiple occupant buildings, could have multiple command and communication devices 106”)
receive data from the at least one associated network controller about functioning of the respective network; ([0017] “an intelligent window controller 104 could relay a message or other communication, as could the command and communication device 106. In some embodiments, messages or communications can be addressed to any component or device in the system, or broadcast to multiple devices, etc. This could be accomplished using packets for communication”)
and, responsive to the received data, send data and/or control messages to the at least one associated network controller. ([0016] “the command and communication device 106 has … a rules engine 132… The rules engine 132 uses information from the network 110, which can include direction from the fourth control system 120 in the server 108, … to create, populate, modify, or adapt various rules for operation of the smart windows 102”)
Regarding Claim 14, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 11,
Nagel further discloses:
wherein the cloud-based system is communicatively coupled with at least one remote site only by way of the associated network controller, irrespective of whether or not the remote site includes a building management system. (Nagel does not disclose a building automation system; and discloses the ‘remote master network controller’ (“server 108”) being communicatively coupled with the ‘network controller’ (“command and communication device 106”) and therefore reads on the claim.)
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 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Iaquinangelo, US Pg-Pub 2010/0286839.
Regarding Claim 4, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
Nagel does not appear to clearly articulate the local data bus is compliant with a Controller Area Network (CAN) standard.
However, Iaquinangelo teaches a main in-building communication network (local data bus; [0031] “digital communication network 20”) which may be a Controller Area Network ([0031] “The digital communication network 20 preferably comprises a field bus 20A, for example a bus of a CAN (Control Area Network) type.”)
Nagel and Iaquinangelo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
Accordingly examiner finds: 1) The prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the electrochromic window building control system of Nagel, which differs by the substitution of a CAN bus standard for the in-building network of Nagel. 2) The substituted components (step, element, etc.) and their functions were known in the art, i.e. the use of a CAN bus standard for in-building communication between controllers taught by Iaquinangelo. 3) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element (step, component, etc.) for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Iaquinangelo explicitly teaches that CAN bus is suitable for building communication and advantageously “avoid[s] structured wiring… and, at the same time, serve[s] peripheral electronic devices with a relatively high number of input channels, with relatively high transmission rates, and at considerable distances” (Iaquinangelo [0031]); and therefore, the substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (see MPEP 2143.I.B)
Regarding Claim 19, Nagel discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 18,
Nagel further discloses:
the remote master controller is configured to reside in a cloud-based system (fig. 1, [0014] “The server 108 could include e.g…. one or more virtual servers”) comprising one or both of computational and data storage resources, (ibid. [0014] “…implemented with physical computing resources”)
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
Nagel does not appear to clearly articulate the local data bus is compliant with a Controller Area Network (CAN) standard;
However, Iaquinangelo teaches a main in-building communication network (local data bus; [0031] “digital communication network 20”) which may be a Controller Area Network ([0031] “The digital communication network 20 preferably comprises a field bus 20A, for example a bus of a CAN (Control Area Network) type.”)
Nagel and Iaquinangelo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
Accordingly examiner finds: 1) The prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the electrochromic window building control system of Nagel, which differs by the substitution of a CAN bus standard for the in-building network of Nagel. 2) The substituted components (step, element, etc.) and their functions were known in the art, i.e. the use of a CAN bus standard for in-building communication between controllers taught by Iaquinangelo. 3) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element (step, component, etc.) for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Iaquinangelo explicitly teaches that CAN bus is suitable for building communication and advantageously “avoid[s] structured wiring… and, at the same time, serve[s] peripheral electronic devices with a relatively high number of input channels, with relatively high transmission rates, and at considerable distances” (Iaquinangelo [0031]); and therefore, the substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (see MPEP 2143.I.B)
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Iaquinangelo, further in view of Bull et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0241587.
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Nagel in view of Iaquinangelo teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 4 and 19, respectively;
Iaquinangelo further teaches:
(Claim 5 representative) wherein the network controller includes a CAN manager, ([0032] “the field bus 20A preferable implements a connection of the master-slave type between the control device 11 and the peripheral devices 10A-10D”)
a CAN interface ([0031] “field bus 20A … a bus of the CAN (Control Area Network type”) to communicate with the window controllers. ([0030] “a digital communication network 20 for enabling exchange of information between the control device 11 and the peripheral devices 10.”)
Nagel in view of Iaquinangelo differs from the claimed invention in that:
neither reference clearly articulates: the CAN manager including an application programming interface configured to accept HTTP inputs from the remote master controller over the Internet
However, Bull teaches a control system (see fig. 1) for peripheral building devices such as smart windows ([0024] “daylight control devices, such as… electrochromic windows”) where the network controller (system controller 110, see fig. 1) includes an application programming interface (see fig. 2, Web application 250, Gateway 252, and RESTful API 272; and [0048] “The Web Application may provide such services by interacting with the gateway 252 through a communications interface/connection 271 using an API (application programming interface 272 provided by the Gateway) configured to accept HTTP inputs from a remote master controller over the internet ([0048] “This API may be a RESTful API … and may be based on, for example, HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) and use standard HTTP methods” [0056] “An administrator may configure Composite Gateway 452 to have a communications interfaces/connections 412 and 422 with Gateway 252a of server 210a/load control system 302 and with Gateway 252b of server 210b/load control system 304 respectively.”)
Bull is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, each reference using a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
Accordingly, examiner finds: 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components – the building control system of Nagel, which differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of an HTTP-based API interface for the undisclosed interface of the internet communication between the controllers 106 and 108 of Nagel; 2) the substituted components (step, element, etc.) and their functions were known in the art - as exemplified by the teachings of Bull describing the use of an HTTP-based API interface for communicating between a network controller in a building control system and a remote server; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element (step, component, etc.) for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Bull teaches that using such a system permits integrating multiple load control systems into an apparently unified control system (see Bull [0007]) accessible via a web browser ([0048] “Using a web browser/web interface… a user may access Web Application 250 using a standard URL”).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Shrivastava.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Nagel teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11, respectively;
Nagel further teaches:
(Claim 6 representative) the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the network of electrochromic windows by way of one or both of the BMS and the network controller. (Nagel does not disclose a building automation system; and discloses the ‘remote master network controller’ (“server 108”) being communicatively coupled with the ‘network controller’ (“command and communication device 106”) and therefore reads on the limitation.)
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
Nagel does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the building includes a building management system (BMS)
However, Shrivastava teaches a building including a control network (fig. 1) for electrochromic windows (fig. 1, windows 117) which includes a building management system (fig. 1 “Building Management System 105”) in addition to a network window controller (fig. 1, Network window controller 103)
Shrivastava is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Nagel to incorporate a building management system in the network of Nagel, as suggested by Shrivastava.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the building with control and automation of non-window systems, as suggested by Shrivastava ([0048] “Typically, building management systems control heating, ventilation, multi-media, and air-conditioning in these buildings. In some cases, the building management system will include the functionality of other systems such as security systems”)
Regarding Claims 7 and 13, Nagel teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11 respectively,
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
(Claim 7 representative) Nagel does not clearly articulate: wherein the building includes a building management system (BMS) and the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the building only by way of the BMS.
However, Shrivastava teaches a building including a control network (fig. 1) for electrochromic windows (fig. 1, windows 117) which includes a building management system (fig. 1 “Building Management System 105”) in addition to a network window controller (fig. 1, Network window controller 103) where the remote master network controller may be communicatively coupled with the building only by way of the BMS. ([0055] “In some embodiments the remote device communicates directly… with the building management system 105, which in turn communicates with the network window controller 103 during operation of the window control application. In such embodiments, the building management system 105 may itself play a role in the application or in providing information needed by the application.”)
Shrivastava is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Nagel to incorporate a building management system in the network of Nagel, as suggested by Shrivastava.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the building with control and automation of non-window systems, as suggested by Shrivastava ([0048] “Typically, building management systems control heating, ventilation, multi-media, and air-conditioning in these buildings. In some cases, the building management system will include the functionality of other systems such as security systems”)
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Nagel teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 11, respectively;
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
(Claim 9 representative) Nagel does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the window controllers by way of an application programming interface.
However, Shrivastava teaches a building including a control network (fig. 1) for electrochromic windows (fig. 1, windows 117) which includes the remote master network controller is communicatively coupled with the window controllers by way of an application programming interface. ([0193] “In certain implementations, an application programming interface (API) is provided for window control applications. Such API may be used to develop applications for various remote device platforms including Microsoft Windows.TM., iPhone, and Android. Through such API internal developers, 3rd party developers, and systems integrators can implement new applications or extend existing applications to monitor and control optically switchable devices on a network.”)
Shrivastava is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Nagel to incorporate an API interface between the network controller and the remote server of Nagel.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide portability and interoperability with common mobile, web, and embedded computing environments, as suggested by Shrivastava ([0194] “the API provides portability and interoperability with common mobile, web, and embedded computing environments.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Nagel teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 11,
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
It is not clear that Nagel articulates: wherein the system is configured as a master network controller for at least one of the plurality of remote sites.
(nb. Although examiner notes that Nagel contemplates hierarchical control, see [0023] “control can be… hierarchical, …absolute…and so on” it is not clear that Nagel expresses “master” control per se.)
However, Shrivastava teaches a building including a control network (fig. 1) for electrochromic windows (fig. 1, windows 117) which includes the system configured as a master network controller for at least one of the plurality of remote sites (i.e. at least one building) ([0071] “System 191 employs a computer 193 to conduct one or more functions of master network controller 103 from FIG. 1A. Examples of such functions include remote access, user management, system diagnostics, database services, and scalability. Some or all of the functions of network window controller 103 may be offloaded to computer 193 in system 191.”)
Shrivastava is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Nagel to use a server computer as the master network controller for at least one of the remote sites, as suggested by Shrivastava.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate remote access, user management, and scalability, as suggested by Shrivastava ([0071] “Examples of such functions include remote access, user management, system diagnostics, database services, and scalability.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Nagel teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 11,
Nagel further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to provide a human operator interface
Nagel differs from the claimed invention in that:
It is not clear if Nagel teaches: [the human operator interface] includes one or more control consoles configured to present information about functioning of devices in the remote sites to a human operator.
However, Shrivastava teaches a building including a control network (fig. 1) for electrochromic windows (fig. 1, windows 117) which includes a human operator interface (see figs. 4A-8B) which include one or more control consoles (e.g. [0131] “On the left side of the interior region of the home screen shown in FIG. 4A are two panels, a control and status panel 420 to the far left and an environment panel 422 to the immediate right of the control and status panel.”) which present information about functioning of devices in the remote sites to a human operator (e.g. [0134] “there is a status subpanel 430 which depicts the current status of the window or windows under the currently selected group. In this example, each available level of tint, and there are four of them in this example, has its own icon. Typically, only one of these will be accentuated at any given time, and this indicates in which of the available levels of tint the window currently resides. When the window is transitioning from one level of tint to another level of tint, there may be in arrow, as shown in the depicted embodiment, illustrating the transition from one state to another state. When the window(s) reaches the selected level of tint, the arrow disappears.”)
Shrivastava is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of building control and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities: each reference uses a plurality of controllers to operate various appliances in the building, including windows, and each reference uses a communication network to communicate between these controllers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Nagel to incorporate the user interface including a plurality of control consoles as suggested by Shrivastava.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide portability and interoperability with common mobile, web, and embedded computing environments, as suggested by Shrivastava ([0194] “the API provides portability and interoperability with common mobile, web, and embedded computing environments.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brown et al., US Pg-Pub 2014/0236323 particularly figs 15, 17 and 18.
Davis et al., US Pg-Pub 2003/0233432 particularly fig. 2
Behnke US Pg-Pub 2005/0200474 particularly fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights