DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 12/01/2025. In virtue of this request:
Claims 1, 9-10 and 18 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-20 are pending;
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wireless powerline control signal” which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification. The originally filed specification discloses “powerline control signal” and “wireless control signal” however is silent regarding “wireless powerline control signal”.
The constitute a new matter and raises doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 11-17, the claims are rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 10 as all dependent claim inherits the deficiency of the base claim.
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 10-17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wireless powerline control signal” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how a signal can be “wireless” while also being on a “powerline”.
Regarding claims 11-17, the claims are rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 10 as all dependent claim inherits the deficiency of the 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/170074A1 hereinafter “Cronin” in view of US2019/0109642A1 hereinafter “Cregg” in view of US2020/0142367A1 hereinafter “Weber” in view of US2012/0038281A1 hereinafter “Verfuerth”.
Regarding claim 1, Cronin discloses a lighting fixture system, comprising:
a first light fixture (Page.14 L32: lighting unit are connected to lighting electrical distribution circuit) coupled (as shown in Fig.1 for example) to a first powerline of a first building (Page.13 L11-13: electricity enters the building via a main power line) and receiving power line control signals along said first powerline (Page.17 L13-16: an instruction is sent via power-line communication network to the lighting unit), said first light fixture capable of wirelessly transmitting the controls provided in said power line control signals (Page.5 L24-25: the lighting units could use ZigBee to communication with the non-connected lighting unit) to a fourth light fixture (Page.5 L19-20: a non-connected lighting unit that is not connected to the electric power distribution circuit);
a control unit (Page.14 L17: a head-end device) for generating control signals to control emission of said first light fixtures (Page.17 L13-16: the head-end device sends the instructions via the power-line communication network to the lighting unit); said control unit coupled to said powerline and generates and sends sending a said power line control signal on said powerline to said first fixture fixtures (Page.17 L13-16: the head-end device sends the instructions via the power-line communication network to the lighting unit) and wherein
said first light fixture receives said power line control signal and wirelessly transmits said controls in said power line control signal to said fourth light fixture to allow said control unit to control emission of said fourth light fixture (Page.5L 24-25: the lighting unit could use DALI/ZigBee locally to communicate with the non-connected lighting unit)
Cronin does not expclitly disclose the communication between lighting unit and non-connected lighting unit is for control signal and the control unit not having line of sight with the fourth lighting fixture; however, Cronin contemplates the additional communication utilizing DALI which is a lighting control protocol, which would be used to send/receive lighting instructions.
Additionally, Cronin contemplates that the non-connected lighting unit is connected to a different electric power distribution circuit (Page.5 L19-22) which could be on a different area of the build or different floors. (Page.7 L24-26: the sub-circuit may be different lighting circuits such as different floors of building) Thus it would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to configure the lighting unit to send the control signal form the powerline communication to the non-connected lighting unit via the wireless connection and to recognize that lighting circuit on different floors would not have line of sight of each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because such configuration minimize the number of devices communicating on the power-line which may affect the bandwidth of the network. (Page.5 L33-35 – Page. 6 L1-4)
Cronin does not expclitly disclose
a second light fixture receiving wireless control signals and capable of sending wireless control signals to others of said light fixtures;
a third light fixture being at least partially buried underground and receiving wireless control signals from said second light fixtures and transmitting wireless status signals to said second light fixture;
a control unit for generating control signals to control emission of said second and third light fixtures, wherein said control unit generates wireless control signals and transmits said wireless control signal to said second fixture and not said third and wherein said second light fixture receives said wireless control signal and transmits said wireless control signal to said third light fixture to allow said control unit to control emission of said third light fixture
Cregg discloses a lighting fixture system, comprising:
a second light fixture (¶50L1-4: device [114] comprises light emitting diode (LED) light device) receiving wireless control signals (¶50L1-4: device [114] configured to communicate via RF) and capable of sending wireless control signals to others of said light fixtures (¶79L1-13: LED lighting device [114] can communicate using RF signal with device);
a third light fixture (¶50L1-4: device [122] comprises light emitting diode (LED) light device) receiving wireless control signals from said second light fixtures (¶80L1-12: each device [112-126] is configured to repeat message to other device on the network) and transmit wireless status signals to said second light fixture (¶112L1-6: device waits for an Acknowledge message from the addressee) (Note: since the device sending the message is waiting for a Acknowledge message from the addressee, the prior art discloses a bidirectional communication between the two device);
a control unit (¶49L3-4: device [116] is configured to communication via RF) for communicate control signals to control emission of said second and third light fixtures (¶6L1-5: communication sent over the network using RF messaging can control LED lighting devices),
said control unit generates wireless control signals and transmit said wireless control signal to said second fixture (¶79L1-13: it can also communicate using RF signaling with device) and wherein said second light fixture sending a wireless control signal to said third light fixture. (¶80L1-12: each device [112-126] is configured to repeat message to other device on the network)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to combine utilize the wireless network disclosed by Cregg in the system disclosed by Cronin as the network of non-connected lighting units.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because such configuration minimize the number of devices communicating on the power-line which may affect the bandwidth of the network. (Page.5 L33-35 – Page. 6 L1-4)
Cronin in view of Cregg hereinafter “Cronin/Cregg” does not explicitly disclose the third light fixture is at least partially buried underground and the control unit have a clear line of sight with second fixture and not third light fixture and sending wireless control signal to said second light fixture and not said third light fixture, and said second light fixture receives said wireless control signal and transmit said wireless control signal to said third light fixture.
Cregg does explicitly disclose that each device can act as a repeater and relay message to other devices (¶80L5-7) therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to configure the device to act as a relay node when there is an obstacle blocking the line of sight between device, as disclosed by Weber. (¶59L1-12: all nodes act as repeaters forwarding message for nodes that may be out of range; a message propagates outwr4ad form the source and then from node to node until the destination even in view of obstruction; as shown in Fig.17 for example)
Verfuerth discloses an outdoor lighting system wherein using a repeater method to send message between device (¶42: configured to forward the signal to other fixtures or to a master controller for action), wherein at least one device is partially buried underground. (as shown in Fig.2 for example, the lighting fixtures are streetlamps which would be partially buried underground)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to configure the device as disclosed by Cregg (¶80L5-7) to act as a relay node when there is an obstacle blocking the line of sight between device, as disclosed by Weber, in an instant when a lighting device is deployed partially buried underground as disclosed by Verfuerth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows all nodes in the network to communicate with each other, regardless of the physical location and deployment location of the device, furthermore, the third light fixture being partially buried underground is merely an intended deployment use of the light fixture.
Regarding claim 2, Cronin/Cregg in view of Weber in view of Verfuerth hereinafter “Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth” discloses in Cronin the system of claim 1, wherein
said control unit is controlled by a user at a user interface. (Page.17 L13-16: if a user of computing device wishes to control lighting unit) (Note: it is inherently disclosed a computing device would have user interface for input)
Regarding claim 3, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses the system of claim 1,
Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth does not explicitly disclose:
said first fixture is at least partially below ground and said second fixture is above ground.
Cronin does contemplate that the lighting device can be placed on different floors of the building. (Page.7 L24-26: the sub-circuit may be different lighting circuits such as different floors of building)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to recognizes that the system can be deployed within a building either above ground or underground and still function properly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because all nodes in the network is able communicate with each other, regardless of the physical location and deployment location of the device is merely an intended deployment use of the light fixture.
Regarding claim 4, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cronin the system of claim 1, wherein
said first fixture comprises a wireless transmitter and receiver capable of wireless communication with said second fixture. (Page.4 L8-10: the lighting unit may also include a wireless communication module for wireless communication)
Regarding claim 5, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cronin the system of claim 1, wherein
said second fixture comprises a wireless transmitter and receiver providing wireless communication with said first and third fixtures. (Page.4 L8-10: the lighting unit may also include a wireless communication module for wireless communication)
Regarding claim 6, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cronin the system of claim 1, wherein
said first fixture sends a signal to said controller along said powerline. (Page.17 L13-16: the head-end device sends the instructions via the power-line communication network to the lighting unit)
Regarding claim 7, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cregg the system of claim 1, wherein
said second fixture sends wireless signals to said control unit. (¶50L1-4: devices comprises light emitting diode lighting device and are configured to communication over the power line, via RF and using modulated light technique)
Regarding claim 8, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cronin the system of claim 1, comprising
a second powerline (as shown in Fig.1 for example, there is a second circuit breaker [20] that branches off to a second branch of sub-circuit), wherein said first powerline is electrically coupled to said second powerline (as shown in Fig.1) and communicating said control signals to said second powerline. (Page.17 L13-16: the head-end device sends the instructions via the power-line communication network to the lighting unit)
Regarding claim 9, Cronin/Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses in Cronin the system of claim 8, further comprising
a fifth light fixture coupled to said second powerline and receiving said control signals on said second powerline. (as shown in Fig.1 for example, there is a second circuit breaker [20] that branches off to a second branch of sub-circuit that would have the same configuration as the first branches of sub-circuit including the same lighting devices)
Regarding claims 10-17, the claims recites similar limitations as in claims 1-9, and therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claims 18-20, the claims recites similar limitations as in claims 1-9, and therefore rejected in the same manner, with the exception of
a first powerline in a first building; and
a second powerline in a second building.
Cronin disclose in Fig.1 for example, that there can be multiple circuit breakers that branches off into different sub-circuits for the control, thus it would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to arrange the different circuit branch disclosed by Cronin in different buildings.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this expands the usage of the system into a wider area, and is it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant’s invention can be summarized as
a lighting device connected to a power line communication and having wireless capability to communicate with another lighting device not on the powerline communication. (first and fourth fixture)
a lighting device connected to a wireless controller and forward a control from the wireless controller to another lighting device that can’t directly communicate with the wireless controller. (second and third fixture)
Cronin discuses a system wherein powerline communication is used to communicate between various lighting device, in addition to wireless communication for communication with lighting device not connected to the powerline.
Cregg/Weber/Verfuerth discloses a wireless communication system wherein every node within the network can communicate with each other, even without direct line of sight, as the communication protocol allows for message forwarding.
Both of these types of communication method are explicitly disclosed by the cited art, and made obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to combine them into one system. Therefore, the newly added limitation of additional fixture did not render the claim allowable in view of the prior art, as the principal operations of the disclosure is disclosed by the cited prior art.
For the at least foregoing reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844