DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 18 November 2025.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18 and 19 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the
amendments to claims 1, 9-11 and 14-16, as well as the cancellation of claims 2, 17
and 20.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 624 and 600. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because: “throuth” (at element 580) in Fig. 5a should apparently read –through--; “varuous” (at element 411) in Fig. 4 appears to be a misspelling; “classifr” (at element 3400) in Fig. 2b also appears to be a misspelling.
The drawings are objected to because: reference character “100” refers to an “intelligent human centric lighting system 100” per the specification, however Fig. 1a references character “100” as “Start human centric lighting” which appears to be a step in a method.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "600A" have both been used to designate “intelligent human centric lighting system”. Fig. 3 is described by paragraphs [0037]-[0038] as the “intelligent human centric lighting system 100”, however “100” is not even shown in Fig. 3.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “650” has been used to designate both “background ambient light sensor” and “ambient light sensor”. (Based on paragraphs [0059] and [0066], the two aforementioned ambient light sensors appear to be able to perform different functions.) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2 of claim 10, “including” should apparently read –includes--.
At line 2 of claim 11, “each spectral recipe” should apparently read –wherein each spectral recipe --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “portable communication device” in claim 11 (the equivalent structures of which are discussed in paragraph [0069] of the specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3-16, 18 and 19 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 1 recites “constructing a cloud database of multispectral recipes…”. It is unclear how such “constructing” is performed as the specification at paragraphs [0049] and [0050] appear to disclose that the constructing of the cloud database of multispectral recipes occurs by
At line 10 of claim 1, it is unclear if “the device” references “the multi spectral light-emitting device” recited at line 9 or “an intelligent communication device” recited at line 6.
Claim 1 at line 12 recites the limitation "the multi spectrum". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 9 of claim 1, it is unclear what comprises/defines the execution of “a human centric lighting operation”.
Claim 1 at line 14 recites the limitation "the human centric lighting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, regarding line 14, it is unclear what constitutes “human centric lighting”.
Claim 1 at line 14 recites the limitation "the effect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 at line 14 recites the limitation "the selected specific emotion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 at lines 14-15 recites "…judging whether the human centric lighting reaches the effect of the selected specific emotion is performed by calculating…" which implies a previous recitation of the step of judging, however no previous recitation is present in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 at lines 14-15 recites that the “judging…is performed by calculating the physiological signal…”. It is unclear what is calculated, or occurs, during the recited “calculating” of the physiological signal.
Claim 1 at line 15 recites the limitation "the physiological signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 at line 15 recites the limitation "the contact physiological sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 16 of claim 1, “the signals” lacks antecedent basis (previous line 15 recites “the physiological signal”).
At line 18 of claim 1, it is unclear if “a cloud database” is the same as or different than “a cloud database” recited at line 3.
Claim 1 at line 18 recites the limitation "the emotional requirement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 at line 18 recites “if not achieved”. It is unclear what this phrase is in reference to.
At line 20 of claim 1, it is unclear if “an intelligent communication device” is the same as or different than “an intelligent communication device” recited at line 6.
At line 22 of claim 1, it is unclear if “a specific spectral recipe” is the same as or different than “a specific spectral recipe” (recited at line 7) or “the selected specific spectral recipe” (recited at line 11).
Claim 1 at line 22 recites the limitation "the adjusted specific spectral recipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “…if not achieved, the user may adjust the lighting parameters…” (lines 18-19), and the claim also recites “storing the lighting parameters according to the adjusted specific spectral recipe” (lines 22-23) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
At line 23 of claim 1, it is unclear if “the cloud database” is the same as or different than “a cloud database” (recited at line 3) or “a cloud database” (recited at line 18).
Claim 4 at lines 2-3 recites the limitation "the spectrum, light intensity, flicker rate or color temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 at line 3 recites “the lighting”. It is unclear if this is in reference to “lighting method”; “lighting operation”; “lighting parameters”; “light”; or “human centric lighting” recited at lines 1, 9, 10, 11 or 14, respectively, of claim 1.
Claim 11 at line 10 recites the limitation "the lighting parameters defined". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is –the lighting parameters--.
Claim 11 at line 16 recites the limitation "the environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 at lines 17-18 recites the limitation "the human centric lighting is determined to achieve….". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the recitation of “when the human centric lighting is determined to achieve the specific emotional effect, the specific spectral recipe and its adjusted lighting parameters are stored into the cloud database” will not be regarded as a positive recitation. Further, this appears to recite a method step (in an apparatus claim). It is also unclear what constitutes “human centric lighting”.
Claim 11 at line 19 recites the limitation "its adjusted lighting parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 at lines 15-16 recites “an ambient light sensor configured in the intelligent lighting terminal to provide ambient parameters in the environment” and claim 16 further appears to limit the “ambient parameters” to “vibration frequency ambient temperature, an ambient carbon dioxide concentration and a face recognition”. However, paragraph [0059] appears to indicate that the occupancy sensor is capable of providing the recited parameters in claim 16; not the ambient light sensor (“The occupancy sensor 660 can be a vibration sensor, and the frequency of vibration can be used to determine the number of people. The occupancy sensor 660 may also be a temperature sensor, and the number of people is judged by the ambient temperature. In addition, the occupancy sensor 660 may also be a camera system, which judges the number of people through artificial intelligence (AI) face recognition. In addition, the occupancy sensor 660 can also be a gas concentration detector for detecting changes in the concentration of oxygen (O.sub.2) or carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2), to judge the effect of the user's spectral irradiation. When the temperature increases and the carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) concentration…). Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite.
Claim 12 at line 1 recites the limitation "the internet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 at line 3 recites “the lighting”. It is unclear if this is in reference to “lighting parameters”; “multi-spectral light”; or “human centric lighting” recited at lines 3, 11 or 18, respectively, of claim 11.
Claim 14 recites that “the lighting parameters include spectrum…of the lighting”. It is unclear what this recitation means as a spectrum is defined by various characteristics.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0290882) in view of Petluri (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0060353). Regarding claim 1 (as best as can be determined in light of its indefinite nature), Chao et al. (hereinafter Chao) discloses a human centric lighting method capable of adjusting lighting parameters, comprises:
accessing a cloud database of multispectral recipes via a processor ([0030]-[0031]), which is capable of storing spectral recipes capable of enhancing specific emotional effects in illuminated users in the cloud database, each spectral recipe defining a set of lighting parameters [0029];
enabling a user, via an intelligent communication device, comprising a smartphone, tablet or workstation, to connected to the cloud database and select a specific spectral recipe that the user wants to achieve a specific emotion (Fig. 5; [0029]-[0031] and [0038]-[0039]);
executing a human centric lighting operation to start the multi spectral light-emitting device installed in a specific field (Figs. 6A-6C), the device configured with the lighting parameters defined in the selected specific spectral recipe so as to emit a light having a specific color temperature of the multi spectrum to illuminate the user ([0031], [0033]-[0037], [0048]);
judging whether the human centric lighting reaches the effect of the selected specific emotion based on a measurement by the contact physiological sensor configured on the user ([0019]-[0021], [0024], [0028]-[0031] and Figs. 4 and 7), wherein the “signal” is processed through an algorithm to generate a proportional value [0025]-[0026], [0045]); and if the “required” emotion is not achieved, the user may adjust the lighting parameters in the selected specific spectral recipe via the intelligent communication device ([0031]-[0033] [0039], [0042], [0043] and [0048] and Fig. 7); and
storing a specific spectral recipe, and storing the lighting parameters corresponding to the spectral recipe into the cloud database when judging that the human centric lighting has reached the effect of the selected specific emotion ([0029], [0031], [0038]-[0039], [0059]).
While Chao does not explicitly disclose constructing the cloud database, Chao makes such obvious as Chao teaches that the processor accesses the cloud database of various spectral recipes, and it would be obvious that such a cloud database would require “construction” in order for a processor to access it to select/present the various spectral recipes to the user for selection (Fig. 5, [0030] and [0031]).
However, Chao fails to disclose explicitly that the proportional value is then compared with reference proportions stored in a cloud database to assess whether the emotional requirement is met. Petluri et al. (hereinafter Petluri) teaches a lighting system and method for distributing light to a user, and adjusting various parameters of the light, such as lighting levels, to improve the emotional state of a user (see Abstract and [0139]). Petluri further discloses integrating data--such as physiological indicators indicative of mood [0139]-- from various sources [0140] and [0141], and comparing with such data sources, in order to optimize lighting parameters which would enhance the emotional state of a user [0142]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare values acquired by a physiological sensor as taught by Chao, with a database comprising a plurality of sensor data from a group of users as taught by Petluri, as integrating data from multiple sources would improve the optimization of spectral recipes delivered to each user ([0039]-[0043] of Chao).
Regarding claim 3, the specific spectral recipe of the specific emotion includes a spectral combination of a multi light scene or a spectral combination of a multi emotional light scene (mixed light/colors) ([0029], [0033], and Fig. 6C of Chao).
Regarding claim 4, the lighting parameters include the spectrum, light intensity, flicker rate or color temperature of lighting ([0029], [0041] and [0048]-[0058] of Chao).
Regarding claim 5, the lighting parameters include lighting time or spectrum generation time ([0029] and [0041] of Chao).
Regarding claim 6, the specific field may include a closed lighting system, an intelligent lighting field or a portable human centric lighting device (Figs. 6A-6D and [0034]-[0037] of Chao).
Regarding claim 7, the closed lighting system is a closed cavity capable of isolating external light ([0034]-[0035] of Chao).
Regarding claim 8, the intelligent lighting field is a meeting room, a classroom, an office place, a social place or a factory (Fig. 6A or 6C of Chao).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0290882) in view of Petluri (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0060353) and further in view of Derungs (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0374741). Regarding claims 9 and 10, while Chao in view of Petluri teaches that the portable human centric lighting device may comprise eyewear or a headset (as disclosed in Fig. 6 of Chao), the combination fails to disclose explicitly that the portable human centric lighting device is a virtual reality device configured for use in a metaverse enviroment. Derungs teaches a virtual reality method and system for tailoring sounds and light patterns to a user to induce an emotional response such as relaxation (see Abstract and [0038]-[0045]), wherein the system may comprise a virtual reality system (configured for use in a virtual reality environment) in the form of eyeglasses (Fig. 3) or a VR helmet/head-mounted display (Fig. 6) in order to provide such sounds and light patterns to the user ([0033]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a portable human centric lighting device as taught by Chao and Petluri, into virtual reality eyewear or headset as taught by Derungs, as Chao recognizes that the portable human centric lighting device may take various forms such as portable eyewear or a portable user device (Figs. 6C and 6D) and Derungs indicates that such portable, personal interfaces such as VR eyewear or headsets facilitate personalized sound and lighting patterns which facilitate emotions such as calmness and relaxation in a user ([0031] and [0042]-[0043]).
Claims 11, 13-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0290882) in view of Maslik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0178892). Regarding claims 11 and 13 (as best as can be determined in light of the indefinite nature of the claim(s)), Chao discloses an intelligent human centric lighting system, comprises:
a cloud database configured to store multispectral spectral recipes, wherein each spectral recipe defines a set of lighting parameters capable of enhancing specific emotional effects in illuminated users ([0030]-[0031]);
a client terminal which is a portable communication device, enabling a user to connect to the cloud database and select a specific spectral recipe to achieve a specific emotional effect (Fig. 5; [0029]-[0031] and [0038]-[0039]), and further allowing the user to adjust lighting parameters in the selected spectral recipe when the emotional effect is not achieved ([0031]-[0033] [0039], [0042], [0043] and [0048] and Fig. 7);
an intelligent lighting terminal installed in a specific field (Figs. 6A-6D), the intelligent lighting terminal being configured with a lamp group (light emitting diodes), the lamp group being controlled according to the lighting parameters defined in the selected specific spectral recipe to emit multi-spectral light with a specific color temperature to illuminate the user ([0033]-[0037]);
a contact physiological sensor configured to detect physiological signals from the illuminated user; and ([0019]-[0021], [0024], [0028]-[0031] and Figs. 4 and 7); wherein the client terminal adjusts the specific spectral recipe in accordance with the physiological signals [0030].
However, Chao fails to disclose explicitly that the system further comprises an ambient light sensor configured in the intelligent lighting terminal to provide ambient light parameters in the environment of the intelligent lighting terminal; wherein the client adjusts the specific spectral recipe according to the ambient light parameters. Maslik et al. (hereinafter Maslik) teaches a method and system for monitoring a patient behavior and then utilizing a light therapy program on a lighting device to produce biologically effective lighting for various functions such as sleeping and relaxation (see Abstract and [0091]). Maslik further teaches that the system further comprises an ambient light sensor 52 configured in the room of a user to provide ambient light parameters in the environment of the room; wherein the processor of the client terminal may adjust the light therapy program according to the ambient light parameters [0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an ambient light sensor which provides ambient light parameters in a room of a user, wherein the processor of a client terminal may adjust the light therapy program according to the ambient light parameters as taught by Maslik, into a room of a user such as those disclosed in Figs. 6A-6C as taught by Chao, as Chao does indicate that interference between light sources in the room should be reduced in order to improve the emotional state and/or the sleep state of the user [0034]).
Regarding claim 14 and in view of its indefinite nature, the lighting parameters of the lamp group (which can be modified/adjusted) include spectrum, light intensity, flicker rate or color temperature of the lighting ([0029], [0041] and [0048]-[0058] of Chao).
Regarding claim 15, the lighting parameters include lighting time or spectrum generation time ([0029] and [0041] of Chao).
Regarding claim 16 and in view of its indefinite nature, Chao discloses an intelligent human centric lighting system as claimed, however Chao fails to disclose that the ambient parameters include vibration frequency, ambient temperature, an ambient carbon dioxide concentration or a face recognition. Maslik teaches a method and system for monitoring a patient behavior and then utilizing a light therapy program on a lighting device to produce biologically effective lighting for various functions such as sleeping and relaxation (see Abstract and [0091]). Maslik further teaches that the system further comprises sensor configured in the room of a user to provide ambient temperature and humidity parameters in the environment of the room, as both temperature and humidity are important factors which influence quality of sleep [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an ambient temperature sensor which provides ambient temperature parameters in a room of a user, as taught by Malik, into a room or space for adjusting or improving an emotional or sleep state as taught by Chao [0034] as Chao does indicate that discomfort in the immediate space of a user can influence emotional/sleep states [0034] and Maslik indicates that various sensors associated with ambient parameters collect data to suggest which parameters could affect such a space ([0068]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 18, the intelligent lighting terminal is a conference room, a classroom, an office place, a social place or a factory (Fig. 6A or 6C of Chao).
Regarding claim 19, the intelligent lighting terminal is a closed space (Fig. 6A or 6C of Chao).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0290882) in view of Maslik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0178892) and further in view of Soler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0077767). Regarding claim 12, Chao and Maslik discloses an intelligent human centric lighting system as claimed, however the combination fails to disclose wherein the internet is an intelligent internet of things formed by the internet of things and artificial intelligence. Soler et al. (hereinafter Soler) teaches an intelligent lighting system for customizing spectral and spatial light output (see Abstract), as likewise disclosed by Chao and Maslik, wherein the lighting system enables external communication via communication protocols to other enabled devices such as Wifi and Bluetooth™ [0037], where such communication entails “internet of things”. Soler further discloses that such systems for customizing spectral and spatial light output to a user constitute “intelligent lighting systems” (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable remote communication between personal lighting systems as taught by Chao and Maslik, to incorporate artificial intelligence as suggested by Soler, as Chao and Maslik disclose the collection of data from various sources to improve emotional/sleep states of an individual user and Soler teaches that intelligent lighting systems enable customization of lighting parameters beneficial amongst individual users (Abstract and [0031] of Soler).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been considered and while some have been resolved, further objections are presented above in light of the current amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 citing Chao; claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Chao in view of Derungs; and claims 11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Chao in view of Maslik have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Chao in view of Petluri. Nonetheless, Applicant contends that Chao does not disclose “constructing a cloud database…..each spectral recipe defining a set of lighting parameters…”. In light of this amendment, the rejection above was amended to reflect the obviousness of such an amendment as now outlined in the rejection above. Applicant further contends that Chao does not disclose “selecting a specific spectral recipe that the user wants to achieve a specific emotion”. However, this argument is not persuasive. Chao discloses at [0031] that a user may select icon E2, for instance, which corresponds to starting the corresponding light health care functions that will achieve the effect of “boosting spirit” for instance, which would read on the aforementioned recitation. Applicant further states that the present invention enables the user to select a desired emotional state as a target emotion to be achieved, however “target emotion to be achieved” is not recited in the claim(s). Additionally, Applicant further states that “the claimed invention emphasizes goal-oriented emotional enhancement through user-directed selection of spectral recipes, which is fundamentally different from Chao's problem-oriented automatic light therapy that responds to existing conditions rather than desired emotional outcomes,” however, again, this does not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference.
Applicant further contends that “the present invention establishes a cloud database as the core infrastructure, enabling users to access, select, and even update multispectral recipes remotely via intelligent communication devices. Each recipe in the database can be individually defined, retrieved, and modified, allowing continuous optimization of lighting parameters according to emotional feedback. This architecture provides both data sharing and adaptive learning capabilities, which are entirely absent in Chao.” As previously noted, this does not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference. For instance, the instant claims are silent as to “adaptive learning capability” or “continuous optimization of lighting parameters according to emotional feedback”. Pages 12-13 of Applicant’s response further generalizes Applicant’s invention, but does not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Chao. Other examples in those pages would be the system “automatically compares”; or “a comparison mechanism”; or “after determining the lighting achieves a specific emotional effect, the system actively marks the corresponding spectral recipe as effective and stores it as a reference case…”; or “cloud-based iterative learning”; or “recipe optimization based on accumulated user responses”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791