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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of the action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or discussed by the examiner.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANASE et al., WO 2015/086542 (hereinafter 542’) in view of Hui Xiao, EP 2818864 B1 (hereinafter 864’).
As to claims 1 and 14, 542’ discloses a system and a method of performing one of a plurality of applications using one or more light sources and a light sensor (542’discloses a fish lighting system with a lighting arrangement, input interface, conversion unit, and light sensors. See claim 1; FIG. 1; pp. 3–10.), the method comprising:
with the one or more light sources, illuminating one or more physical objects in an aquatic medium, the one or more physical objects including fish (542’expressly teaches fish lighting in freshwater tanks and marine/sea-cage environments. See title; pp. 1–2, 4–6, 18–21.);
with the light sensor, sensing light reflected by the one or more physical objects in the aquatic medium (542’ teaches light sensors and ambient light sensing in aquarium settings. See FIG. 1; pp. 7–10.); and
configuring a computer processor to automatically adjust one or more parameters of the one or more light sources in response to analysis of video data received from the light sensor (542’ teaches a lighting controller that converts fish-response input into lighting control signals and adjusts intensity/color. See claim 1; FIG. 1; pp. 4–10),
wherein the one or more parameters of the one or more light sources includes a spectrum parameter and wherein the spectrum parameter is automatically adjusted by the computer processor, in response to the analysis of the video data received from the light sensor (542’ expressly teaches adjusting lighting spectrum and intensity to obtain desired fish behavioral and physiological responses. See claims 1–3, 6, 10–13; pp. 4–6, 10–21), the spectrum parameter adjusted based on an observed behavioral characteristic of a species of the fish, the observed characteristic of the species associated with the spectrum parameter (542’ teaches species-dependent light response, fish action space, and photoreceptor-based behavioral/physiological mapping. See pp. 10–21).
542’ doesn’t explicitly disclose using video-data-based reflected light sensing and analysis as the automatic trigger for adjusting the light source.
864’ from the same field of endeavor teaches a smart aquarium with sensors and a video camera, remote analysis of fish behavior and autonomous instruction generation (See claim 1; paras. [0011], [0016], [0024]–[0025], [0047]–[0055], [0058]–[0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date off the claimed invention to modify 542’ by using video-data-based reflected light sensing and analysis as the automatic trigger for adjusting the light source, as suggested by 864’ because combining known fish-lighting control with known aquarium video analytics would improve automatic fish-behavior-responsive lighting.
Note: Claim 14 is essentially the system counterpart of claim 1.
As to claim 2, 542’ discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the adjustment of the one or more parameters of the one or more light sources depends on data retrieved from a non- transitory computer-readable data storage medium by the computer processor, the data having been generated based on the observed behavioral characteristic (542’ teaches processor/memory, lookup tables, and updated fish-response data over time. See pp. 7–10, 20–21).
542’ doesn’t explicitly disclose “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
However, 864’ teaches data storage module 21 storing raw data, analytics, KPI configurations, and decisions (See FIG. 1; paras. [0058]–[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 542’ such that the data retrieved from a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium. Storing behavior-response mappings in memory is a routine implementation of 542’s lookup-table control architecture.
As to claim 3, 542’ discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the one or more parameters of the one or more light sources includes an intensity parameter (542’ expressly teaches intensity control, including intensity parameter A. See claim 1; pp. 13–18).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 542’ in view of 864’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SAMUELS et al., WO 2009/141622 a1 (hereinafter 622’) .
As to claim 5, 542’ discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the spectrum parameter is automatically adjusted to control white balance for the light sensor operating in the aquatic medium, the aquatic medium having a static or dynamic wavelength-dependent absorption characteristic (542’ teaches adjusting light spectrum based on ambient light and water optical properties, including attenuation and scattering. See pp. 8–10, 15–21).
542’ when modified by 864’ doesn’t explicitly disclose “white balance”/wavelength-compensation in the aquatic medium.
622’ from the same field of endeavor, teaches estimating spectral attenuation coefficient of ambient water and adjusting the output spectrum so that a predetermined light spectrum arrives at the target (See claims 7, 30–37; paras. [0039]–[0042], [0100]–[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 542’ when modified by 864’ since 542’ already seeks to control light for fish-behavior and 622’ teaches how to compensate for wavelength-dependent attenuation in water. Combining them would be a predictable improvement with a reasonable expectations of success.
As to claim 6, 542’ teaches the method of Claim 5 wherein the aquatic medium includes water or a water-based solution (542’ expressly teaches freshwater and marine water environments).
As to claim 7, 542’ discloses the method of Claim 6 wherein the water-based solution includes salt water (542’ expressly teaches marine water / sea-cage applications).
Claim(s) 9-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 542’ in view of 864’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZUZAK et al., US 2010/0056928 (hereinafter 928’).
As to claims 9, 10 and 12, 542’ discloses wherein the parameters of the one or more light sources are automatically adjusted to produce one of a plurality of pre-defined patterns of light (542’ teaches multiple lighting recipes and adjustable spectral/color outputs. See claims 1–13; pp. 4–6, 10–21).
542’ when modified by 864’ does not explicitly disclose pre-defined light patters that include a grid or a checkboard pattern.
928’ from the same field of endeavor teaches DLP/DMD based control of projected light and complex illumination patterns (See claims 1, 15–18, 37–40; FIGS. 70–72; paras. [0424]–[0430]). Further, grid or checkboard patterns are a routine variant of structured light/DMD pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 542’ when modified by 864’. Once spectrum control is known, using pre-defined light patterns that include a grid or checkboard is a routine implementation. DLP/DMD pattern generation is a well-known way to create such outputs and would provide predictable result with reasonable expectations of success.
As to claim 11, 542’ does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 10 further comprising sensing a reflected grid pattern with the light sensor and configuring the computer processor to analyze the reflected grid pattern sensed to determine a contour of the one or more physical objects.
928’ teaches reflected-light imaging and processor-based analysis of optical patterns; structured-light contour sensing is a known use of such systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 542’ when modified by 864’ for sensing a reflected grid pattern with the light sensor and analyzing the reflected grid pattern to determine a contour of the one or more physical objects. Using a projected grid to infer contour is a conventional image-processing application and an obvious extension of programmable illumination as evidenced by 928’ and would provide predictable result with reasonable expectations of success.
As to claim 15, modified 542’ teaches the system of Claim 14 wherein the one or more light sources is a single white light source configured to produce a beam of light, the beam of light having component wavelengths in each of red, green, and blue regions of a visible light spectrum (pages:10-11, 20-21; Fig. 4 and related text) but fails to disclose further comprising one or more prisms configured to: disperse the beam of light by wavelength; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the red region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the green region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; and direct the beam reflected by each one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens.
928’ from the same field of endeavor teaches (claims 1, 9 and ¶¶ [0045]–[0047]), an optical path including an illumination source, a dispersing element (prism), a digital micro-mirror array that tunes plural wavelengths into a spectrum, and an optical device/detector positioned after the target to collect reflected light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 592’ such that the system further comprising one or more prisms configured to: disperse the beam of light by wavelength; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the red region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam of light having wavelengths in the green region of the visible light spectrum to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; direct a portion of the dispersed beam to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; and direct the beam reflected by each one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens because 542’ supplies the fish-lighting application and 928’ supplies the optical architecture. Combining them would simply implement the fish-lighting spectrum control using established DLP/DMD projection hardware and would predictably improve the precision of the fish-lighting spectrum with a reasonable expectations of success.
As to claim 16, modified 542’ discloses the system of claim 14 wherein the one or more light sources includes at least one red light source, at least one green light source, and at least one blue light source and wherein: the at least one red light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the red region of the visible light spectrum; the at least one green light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the green region of the visible light spectrum; the at least one blue light source is configured to produce a beam of light having wavelengths in the blue region of the visible light spectrum (pages:10-11, 20-21; Fig. 4 and related text) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: one or more first prisms configured to direct each beam produced by each light source of the at least one red light source, at least one green light source, and at least one blue light source to one or more digital micro-mirror devices; anode or more second prisms configured to direct each beam reflected by the one or more digital micro-mirror devices to a projection lens.
928’ teaches DLP/DMP optical path with dispersing element/prism, wavelength separation into plural wavelengths, a digital micromirror array that tunes the wavelengths into a spectrum and a detector positioned after the target to collect reflected light and projection lens (claims 1, 9; ¶¶ [0232]–[0233], [0309]–[0310], [0331]–[0333], [0424]–[0430].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified 542’ with 928’ because the references are directed to controlling light spectrum and intensity, and 928’ provides a known, predictable optical implementation for producing and directing spectrally controlled light. 542’ supplies the application and control objective-namely, producing fish-appropriate light recipes, while 928’ supplies the missing DLP/DMD based hardware architecture for separating wavelengths and projecting a selected spectrum. Combining the references would have been a straightforward use of known optical components for their known functions, yielding the predictable result of a fish lighting system with improved spectral control.
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 542’ in view of 864’ and 928’ and further in view of SAMUELS et al., WO 2009/141622 A1 (hereinafter 622’).
As to claim 13, 542’ when modified by 864’ and 928’ doesn’t explicitly disclose the method of Claim 12 further comprising sensing a reflected checkerboard pattern with the light sensor and configuring the computer processor to analyze the reflected checkerboard pattern sensed to facilitate calibration of the light sensor.
622’ from the same field of endeavor teaches using a calibration surface with known reflectance and feedback control to adjust spectrum (claim 36, 37; p.4, ¶ [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 542’ when modified by 864’ and 928’ further comprising sensing a reflected checkerboard pattern with the light sensor and configuring the computer processor to analyze the reflected checkerboard pattern sensed to facilitate calibration of the light sensor since using a checkboard to calibrate a light sensor is a conventional alternative to using a white calibration target as evidenced by 622’ and would provide predictable result with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights