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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-7, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelor et al. (US 2015/0351325) in view of Chemel et al. (US 2010/0259931), and Photo System Instruments (Applicant supplied NPL from IDS dated 4/29/2022, hereinafter “PSI”).
Regarding claim 1, Shelor et al. discloses a method of determining characteristics of a lighting system (abstract), the lighting system having a power supply (paragraph [0041]) and a lighting fixture (140), the lighting fixture having a number of emitting surfaces ((140) includes light (150) emitted from lighting elements, see paragraph [0034]), the method comprising: receiving a target photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) at a canopy of a plant bed (paragraph [0049] discusses the PLC controlling for PPFD) having a specified area and a specified mounting height between the canopy and the emitting surfaces of the lighting fixture above the plant bed (paragraph [0036] discloses plants beneath the light assembly (140) with a specific height and size), determining a system wattage supplied by the power supply of the lighting system based on at least the determined number, the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height (paragraph [0049] discloses the PLC (155) can include a PID that calculates error value from measured variables, e.g. light sensed, based on a determined number, target PPFD, area, and set height), when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, redetermining the determined system wattage (paragraph [0049] discloses adjusting the lighting system power supply).
Shelor et al. does not explicitly disclose the emitting surfaces being removable from the lighting fixture, and a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces of the lighting fixture being adjustable, determining a number of removable emitting surfaces on the lighting fixture based on at least the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height, the determined number of emitting surfaces being coupled to the power supply by a plurality of modular connectors, each of the determined number of emitting surfaces being coupled to the power supply by a corresponding one of the plurality of modular connectors, determining a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces based on at least the determined number and the specified mounting height, when one of the plurality of modular connectors fails, replacing the failed modular connector with a replacement modular connector without interfering with operations of the other of the plurality of modular connectors, when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, redetermining the determined number, and the spacing between each of the emitting surfaces, and adding and removing emitting surfaces to or from the lighting fixture and adjusting the spacing between the emitting surfaces when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed.
Chemel et al., like Shelor et al., teaches a method of determining characteristics of a lighting system, and further teaches a lighting system ((102),(4900)) having a number of emitting surfaces, the emitting surface being removable from the lighting fixture (paragraphs [0157], [0339], [0507]), and a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces of the lighting fixture being adjustable (paragraphs [0345]-[0346], teach that when an input that may include a change in the specific mounting height, the tool may tell the user how to configure via light bar count, as an example, then acts as instruction manual allowing the changes to take place at that time), the determined number of emitting surfaces being coupled to the power supply by a plurality of modular connectors ((174), (4904)), each of the determined number of emitting surfaces being coupled to the power supply by a corresponding one of the plurality of modular connectors (paragraph [0156]), when one of the plurality of modular connectors fails, replacing the failed modular connector with a replacement modular connector without interfering with operations of the other of the plurality of modular connectors (paragraphs [0157], [0339], and [0507] note quick release components provide a conduit for electrical power to the light bar), and adding and removing emitting surfaces to or from the lighting fixture and adjusting the spacing between the emitting surfaces when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed (paragraphs [0345]-[0346], teach that when an input that may include a change in the specific mounting height, the tool may tell the user how to configure via light bar count, as an example, then acts as instruction manual allowing the changes to take place at that time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. to include a plurality of modular connectors and the ability to add and remove emitting surfaces as taught by Chemel et al. in order to provide easy tool-less replacement of the components when necessary based on changes in requirements or due to the need of replacement (Chemel et al.: paragraphs [0333]-[0343]).
PSI, like Shelor et al., teaches a method of determining characteristics of a lighting system, and further teaches a custom LED bar system that provides emitting surfaces that are removable (page 2, 2nd paragraph discusses the bars are assembled in multiple modules that can be arranged according to customer’s request and controlled independently, which allows for the removal and addition of LED bars modules), determining a number of removable emitting surfaces on the lighting fixture based on at least the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height (pages 2, 7, and 10 disclose the determined number of emitting surfaces determined based on target PPFD (up to 2,000 µmol.m-2.s-1), area (customizable) and mounting height (adjustable LED bars height), determining a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces based on at least the determined number and the specified mounting height (page 2, 2nd paragraph discusses multiple modules arranged and suspended per customer request, page 7 Figure shows removable elements that are arranged with variable spacing), when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, redetermining the determined number (PSI: pages 2 and 7 show the system with removable light emitting elements, based on customer requests), and the spacing between each of the emitting surfaces (PSI: pages 2 and 7 show variable spacing and number of lighting elements, based on customer requests).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al. to include removable emitting surfaces, and the determined number of emitting surfaces based on target PPFD, specified area, and height, and spacing between each determined by the determined number and height as taught by PSI in order to help customize the lighting system best for the canopy and needs of the customer.
Regarding claim 4, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI, as discussed so far, does not explicitly teach wherein when the re-determined number of emitting surfaces is greater than the determined number of emitting surfaces, adding additional removable emitting surfaces to the lighting fixture and adjusting a spacing between each of the re-determined number of emitting surfaces to equal to the re-determined spacing.
In addition to the above, PSI teaches the system may be assembled in multiple LED bars modules that can be arranged and suspended according to customer’s requests (pages 2 and 7 show the lighting system with removable light emitting elements which have variable spacing and number of lighting elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al., and PSI to provide additional removable emitting surface when the re-determined number of emitting surfaces is greater than the determined number of emitting surfaces as taught by PSI in order to provide a customizable system with flexibility meeting a particular need of a client.
Regarding claim 5, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches (references to Shelor et al.) wherein when the determined system wattage is less than a maximum wattage of the power supply, coupling one or more peripheral devices to the power supply (paragraph [0042] discloses external devices such as sensors, relays, etc. connected to the PLC (155) that is peripheral to the power supply activating the light assembly).
Regarding claim 6, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Shelor et al.) wherein the one or more peripheral devices comprise at least one of a fan, a heater, a sensor, a communications module, and a control device (Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0042], The PLC (155) as a control device is peripheral to the power supply that activates the light assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Shelor et al.) wherein the one or more peripheral devices consume a total peripheral wattage, the total peripheral wattage plus the determined system wattage being less than or equal to the maximum wattage of the power supply (paragraph [0042], the PLC (155) executes the program repeatedly as long as the controlled system is running, therefore both run as less than or equal to the maximum wattage of the power supply).
Regarding claim 12, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI, as discussed so far, does not explicitly teach wherein when at least one of the emitting surfaces fail, the method further comprises: removing the at least one failed emitting surfaces; adjusting the spacing between the remaining emitting surfaces based on the specified area; and adjusting the specified mounting height based on the spacing between the remaining emitting surfaces.
In addition to the above, PSI teaches the emitting surfaces are removable and provide variable spacing per customer request (pages 2, 7, and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al., and PSI to remove a failed emitting surface and adjust the spacing between and height to maintain the PPDF levels as taught by PSI in order to provide flexibility in the system in the geometry and adjustable height to meet the needs of a particular client (page 2). Further, removing a failed emitting surface in a modular, adjustable system would be obvious in order to provide maintenance upkeep.
Regarding claim 13, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches (references to Shelor et al.) a specified mounting height and a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces (Fig. 1). Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI does not explicitly teach wherein the determined spacing between each of the emitting surfaces is equal to the specified mounting height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al., and PSI to have the specified mounting height equal to the spacing between each of the emitting surfaces as a means to provide a one-to-one correspondence between light emitting elements and plants per a customer request. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 15, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches (references to Shelor et al.) wherein different combinations of values of the system wattage, the determined number, the spacing, and the specified mounting height satisfy the target PPFD and the specified area (paragraphs [0036] and [0049], the PLC (155) calculates an error value between a measured variable PPFD and a desired setpoint. The error is minimized by height changes, and the minimum height depends on shape and size of assembly. Therefore, different variations of wattage, determined number, spacing, and height can satisfy the target PPFD.).
Regarding claim 16, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI, as discussed so far, does not explicitly teach wherein when the re-determined number of emitting surfaces is less than the determined number of emitting surfaces, the method further comprises removing excess emitting surfaces from the lighting fixture and adjusting a spacing between each of the remaining emitting surfaces to equal to the re-determined spacing.
In addition to the above, PSI teaches the system may be assembled in multiple LED bars modules that can be arranged and suspended according to customer’s requests (pages 2 and 7 show the lighting system with removable light emitting elements which have variable spacing and number of lighting elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al., and PSI to remove excess emitting surfaces when the re-determined number of emitting surfaces is less than the determined number of emitting surfaces as taught by PSI in order to provide customizable system with flexibility meeting a particular need of a client.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelor et al. (US 2015/0351325) in view of Chemel et al. (US 2010/0259931), and Photo System Instruments (Applicant supplied NPL from IDS dated 4/29/2022, hereinafter “PSI”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinowell (Applicant supplied NPL from IDS dated 4/29/2022).
Regarding claim 14, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: selecting the power supply from a plurality of power supplies, each of the plurality of power supplies having a maximum wattage; wherein the selected power supply has a smallest difference between its maximum wattage and the system wattage.
Sinowell teaches a method with a lighting system comprising a power supply selected from a plurality of power supplies, each of the plurality of power supplies having a maximum wattage (pages 26-29 show a plurality of ballasts with various wattage that are show maximum wattage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al., and PSI to provide multiple power supplies as taught by Sinowell and to provide specifically the power supply that is most appropriate for the customer customized option.
Regarding claim 17, Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI teaches the method of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI does not explicitly teach wherein when the re-determined system wattage exceeds a maximum wattage of the power supply, replacing the power supply by a replacement power supply having a maximum wattage above the re-determined system wattage.
Sinowell teaches a method that includes a lighting system comprising a power supply that re-determines system wattage based on dimming level, wherein when the system wattage exceeds a maximum wattage of the power supply, the power supply is replaced by a replacement power supply having a maximum wattage above the re-determined system wattage (page 13 of document discusses having a different maximum wattage based on changes in the re-determined system, see dimming option chart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shelor et al. modified by Chemel et al. and PSI to provide a replacement power supply having a maximum wattage above the re-determined system wattage as taught by Sinowell, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide and expand the customizability for the customer, providing customizable power supply options, especially if the PID of Shelor is provided with specific limits for the adjustment of other variables. Thereby expanding the ability to customize the experience for the customer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argued that none of the art teaches or suggests the method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, applicant argued that it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to combine Shelor, Chemel, and PSI, as provided in the rejections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wyrick et al. (US 2013/0107530) teaches a method that includes the changing of spacing when adding and subtracting surfaces. Myeong (KR 101608894) teaches a method that includes the removing of one emitting surface while not disturbing the others in operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights