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 .
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 lighting system (abstract), comprising: a power supply (paragraph [0041]); and a lighting fixture (140) coupled to the power supply, the lighting fixture having a determined number of emitting surfaces ((140) includes light (150) emitted from lighting elements, see paragraph [0034]); wherein the lighting system satisfies 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 of the determined number of emitting surfaces above the canopy (paragraph [0036] discloses plants beneath the light assembly (140) with a specific height and size), a system wattage supplied by the power supply is determined 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), PPFD and a desired setpoint. The controller minimizes the error by adjusting height); wherein when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, the determined system wattage is re-determined (Shelor et al.: controller minimizes the error by adjusting process variables such as lowering the effective height, by outputting signals to the controlled devices (servo motor, lighting system power supply, see paragraph [0049])).
Shelor et al. does not explicitly disclose the emitting surface are removable, 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, and when one of the plurality of modular connectors fails, the failed modular connector being configured to be replaced by a replacement modular connector without interfering with operations of the other of the plurality of modular connectors; the determined number of emitting surfaces is determined based on at least the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height, and a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces is determined based on at least the determined number and the specified mounting height, when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, the determined number, and the spacing between each of the emitting surfaces are re-determined; and wherein the lighting fixture is configured to allow 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. teaches a lighting system ((102),(4900)) and the emitting surface are removable (paragraphs [0157], [0339], [0507]), 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, and wherein when one of the plurality of modular connectors fails, the failed modular connector is configured to be replaced by 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 wherein the lighting fixture is configured to allow 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 hour 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 lighting system 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 teaches custom LED bar systems that provide 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); the determined number of emitting surfaces is determined 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); and a spacing between each of the emitting surfaces is determined 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), wherein when at least one of the target PPFD, the specified area, and the specified mounting height are changed, 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) are re-determined.
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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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, additional removable emitting surfaces are added to the lighting fixture and a spacing between each of the re-determined number of emitting surfaces is adjusted 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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, the system further comprises one or more peripheral devices coupled 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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 at least one failed emitting surfaces are removed; the spacing between the remaining emitting surfaces is adjusted based on the specified area; and the specified mounting height is adjusted 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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 specified mounting height is equal to the spacing between each of the emitting surfaces.
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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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, excess emitting surfaces are removed from the lighting fixture and a spacing between each of the remaining emitting surfaces is adjusted 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 lighting system 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 lighting system of claim 1. Shelor et al. as modified by Chemel et al., and PSI does not explicitly teach wherein: the power supply is selected from a plurality of power supplies, each of the plurality of power supplies having a maximum wattage; and the selected power supply has a smallest difference between its maximum wattage and the system wattage.
Sinowell teaches 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 lighting system 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 lighting system 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, the power supply is replaced by a replacement power supply having a maximum wattage above the re-determined system wattage.
Sinowell teaches 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 lighting system 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 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argued that Chemel does not teach the amended limitation. 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.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chemel teaches that the use of the tool or system can allow for the adding or removing of emitting surfaces once a change has been made to the specified mounting height, for example. In fact, the tool can act as an instruction manual letting the user know specifically the count for the emitting surfaces post change. Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
McMillan (US 2013/0027929) and Hansen et al. (US 2008/0010878) teach a lighting system with replacement of lens plates after a height change.
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 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.
/C.W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643