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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s remark, I. 35 USC § 101 Claim Rejections: Applicant argues “Amended independent Claim 1 has been amended to provide significantly more than an abstract idea capable of being performed by mentally adapting a respective light plan. Instead, Claim 1, as amended, now describes an interactive, specialized system for optimizing a layout of lighting device in a space (i.e., a light plan) based on the determined performance levels (at alternative locations) of user-selected auxiliary functions for the light fixtures while still achieving specific light level criteria for the space.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the amended claim 1 does not specify any further use of the output light plan in controlling a technical device or manufacturing a respective light system according to the adapted light plan in a respective certain space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7,9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a system and a method of adapting a light plan for a certain space without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system with an input interface, an output interface and a processor to adapt and modify a light plan of a planned space. The light plan indicates planned positions of lighting devices adapting a light plan for a certain space. The light plan indicate planned positions of lighting devices. Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 15 are directed to a system for adapting a light plan for a certain space. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the light plan does not represent a real physical lighting system of a respective space. The claim refers to a design process which uses a computer-implemented simulation to produce an updated light plan of a respective planned space. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor of the claimed system does not need to meet any further specific requirement other than being a conventional processor. Data processing to change the simulated position of the respective lighting device within the light plan can also be carried out with any conventional processor. When considered separately and combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. The identified claim limitation(s) that recite(s) an abstract idea do/does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section I of the 2018 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. Nonetheless, the claim limitation(s) is/are being treated as reciting an abstract idea because it may be even be performed by mentally adapting a respective light plan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph Chang whose telephone number is (571)272-1759. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00- 17:00.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/JOSEPH CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849