DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 states “the crew member-controlled mechanism cause”. This should read --the crew member-controlled mechanism causing--.
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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 states “the photochromatic material is exposed to the light source by a passenger directing the light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material” and claim 16 states “is exposed to a respective light source of the plurality of light sources by a passenger directing the respective light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material”. How would the material be exposed to the light source by directing the light source away from the material?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apdalhaliem et al (US 20150296565 A1) in view of Gross et al (US 20140327949 A1).
For claim 1, Apdalhaliem discloses a system for shading or unshading of an aircraft window, the system comprising:
the aircraft window Fig. 3;
a photochromatic material Para 0049: “dimmable window panel 210 may be implemented using a device selected from one of an electrochromic device, a photochromic device” coupled to the aircraft window.
Apdalhaliem does not explicitly state that there are light sources in the aircraft cabin.
However, Gross teaches a photochromic window 2 with a dedicated light source Fig. 5: 28.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Apdalhaliem by using the photochromatic window, including a controlled dedicated light source for control of the photochromic layer, as disclosed by Gross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to control the photochromic layer.
For claim 4, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the photochromatic material is coupled to an interior of the aircraft window Gross, layer 10 is interior to layers 8 and wherein the photochromatic material is responsive to a light wavelength in a range of 100 nm to 1 mm Gross, Para 0036: “The light 12 may be in the ultra violet region of the spectrum or in the 400 to 500 nanometer wavelength region, to match the activation wavelength of photochromic material layer 10”.
For claim 5, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the light source is at least one of an aircraft passenger reading light, a cabin light, an edge light, or a dedicated light source Gross, Fig. 5: 28 and wherein the light source outputs a light wavelength in a range of 100 nm to 1 mm Gross, Para 0036: “The light 12 may be in the ultra violet region of the spectrum or in the 400 to 500 nanometer wavelength region”.
For claim 6, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the photochromatic material is exposed to the light source by a passenger directing the light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger to change the amount of light entering passenger cabin”, the light is directed toward the material when it is on; as modified, the control is the light source of Gross.
For claim 7, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a crew member-controlled mechanism, wherein the crew member-controlled mechanism is coupled to the light source and wherein the photochromatic material is exposed to the light source by the crew member-controlled mechanism directing the light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger to change the amount of light entering passenger cabin”, and a crew member may also use the control (intended use); as modified, the control is the light source of Gross.
For claim 8, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the crew member-controlled mechanism is at least one of an actuator or a motor whatever causes the light to operate is actuating that operation and therefore is an actuator.
For claim 9, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 7, further comprising:
a controller Fig. 2: controller 216, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an input from a crew member of the aircraft Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger” or crew-member; and
send a command to the crew member-controlled mechanism to cause the crew member-controlled mechanism to direct a light of the light source on the photochromatic material Para 0068: “Controller 216 also may control changing dimmable window panel 210 between transparent state 224 and opaque state 226”, as modified by Gross the control is the light source.
For claim 10, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a color filter or reflective coating, wherein the color filter or reflective coating is coupled to an exterior of the aircraft window Gross, Para 0038: “having two layers of reflecting coating 20 on its two faces”.
For claim 11, Apdalhaliem discloses an aircraft, the aircraft comprising:
a plurality of aircraft windows Fig. 1;
a photochromatic material coupled to each of the plurality of aircraft windows Para 0049: “dimmable window panel 210 may be implemented using a device selected from one of an electrochromic device, a photochromic device”.
Apdalhaliem does not explicitly state that there are light sources in the aircraft cabin.
However, Gross teaches a photochromic window 2 with a dedicated light source Fig. 5: 28.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Apdalhaliem by using the photochromatic window, including a controlled dedicated light source for control of the photochromic layer, as disclosed by Gross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to control the photochromic layer.
For claim 14, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the photochromatic material is coupled to an interior of each of the plurality of aircraft windows Gross, layer 10 is interior to layers 8 and wherein the photochromatic material is responsive to a light wavelength in a range of 100 nm to 1 mm Gross, Para 0036: “The light 12 may be in the ultra violet region of the spectrum or in the 400 to 500 nanometer wavelength region, to match the activation wavelength of photochromic material layer 10”.
For claim 15, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein each light source of the plurality of light sources is at least one of an aircraft passenger reading light, a cabin light, an edge light, or a dedicated light source Gross, Fig. 5: 28 and wherein the light source outputs a light wavelength in a range of 100 nm to 1 mm Gross, Para 0036: “The light 12 may be in the ultra violet region of the spectrum or in the 400 to 500 nanometer wavelength region”.
For claim 16, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the photochromatic material on each of the plurality of aircraft windows is exposed to a respective light source of the plurality of light sources by a passenger directing the respective light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material on a respective aircraft window of the plurality of aircraft windows Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger to change the amount of light entering passenger cabin”, the light is directed toward the material when it is on; as modified, the control is the light source of Gross.
For claim 17, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 11, further comprising:
a plurality of crew member-controlled mechanisms, wherein each crew member- controlled mechanism of the plurality of crew member-controlled mechanisms is coupled to a respective light source of the plurality of light sources and wherein the photochromatic material on each of the plurality of aircraft windows is exposed to the respective light source by a respective crew member-controlled mechanism directing the respective light source either towards or away from the photochromatic material on a respective aircraft window of the plurality of aircraft windows Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger to change the amount of light entering passenger cabin”, and a crew member may also use the control (intended use); as modified, the control is the light source of Gross.
For claim 18, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 17, wherein the plurality of crew member-controlled mechanisms are at least one of an actuator or a motor whatever causes the light to operate is actuating that operation and therefore is an actuator.
For claim 19, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 17, further comprising:
a controller Fig. 2: controller 216, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an input from a crew member of the aircraft Para 0007: “dimmable window panel may be controlled by a passenger” or crew-member; and
send a command to each of the plurality of crew member-controlled mechanisms causing the plurality of crew member-controlled mechanisms to direct a light of a respective light source of the plurality of light sources on the photochromatic material of a respective aircraft window of the plurality of aircraft windows Para 0068: “Controller 216 also may control changing dimmable window panel 210 between transparent state 224 and opaque state 226”, as modified by Gross the control is the light source.
For claim 20, Apdalhaliem discloses the aircraft of claim 11, further comprising:
a color filter or reflective coating coupled to an exterior of each of the plurality of aircraft windows Gross, Para 0038: “having two layers of reflecting coating 20 on its two faces”.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apdalhaliem and Gross in view of Sears et al (US 20230028165 A1).
For claims 2-3/12-13, Apdalhaliem discloses the system of claim 1/11, but does not disclose whether the first state is transparent or opaque, stating that the window operated “in response to at least one of voltage, light, or heat applied to dimmable window panel”. It seems the window could be constructed with either one as the default and that light would effect change to the other state.
Sears teaches that it is known for either state to be the default Para 0013: “wherein a default orientation of a host material in the active liquid crystal layer is selected to be in a dark state or in a clear state”.
For claim 2/12, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Apdalhaliem by having the first state by transparent and the second be opaque as disclosed by Sears. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in cases where it was desired to have the window be transparent for more time, therefore saving energy.
For claim 3/13, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Apdalhaliem by having the first state by opaque and the second be transparent as disclosed by Sears. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in cases where it was desired to have the window be opaque for more time, therefore saving energy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642