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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 08 January 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 10, 11, and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6: “accessing to a” should apparently read --accessing a--.
In claim 1, line 11: “the specific color temperatures” should apparently read --the plurality of specific color temperatures--.
In claim 1, line 12: “the establishing steps” should apparently read --the plurality of establishing steps--.
In claim 1, line 13: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 1, line 14: “the establishing steps” should apparently read --the plurality of establishing steps--.
In claim 1, line 14: “comprises” should apparently read --comprise--.
In claim 1, line 15: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 1, line 15: “the known pictures” should apparently read --the plurality of known pictures--.
In claim 1, line 16: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 1, lines 17-18: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 1, line 18: “the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 1, line 18: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 1, line 20: “the results of the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of results of the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 1, lines 20-21: “the specific color temperatures” should apparently read --the plurality of specific color temperatures--.
In claim 1, line 21: “the corresponding multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of corresponding multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 1, line 24: “the results of the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of results of the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 1, line 26: “the circadian-rhythm parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters--.
In claim 1, line 34: “the start step” should apparently read --the starting step--.
In claim 2, lines 3-4: “the time divisions” should apparently read --the plurality of time divisions--.
In claim 3, line 2: “the multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 4, line 5: “the circadian-rhythm parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters--.
In claim 10, line 3: “the multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 11, line 10: “the specific color temperatures” should apparently read --the plurality of specific color temperatures--.
In claim 11, line 11: “the establishing steps” should apparently read --the plurality of establishing steps--.
In claim 11, line 12: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 11, line 13: “the establishing steps” should apparently read --the plurality of establishing steps--.
In claim 11, line 13: “comprises” should apparently read --comprise--.
In claim 11, line 14: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 11, line 14: “the known pictures” should apparently read --the plurality of known pictures--.
In claim 11, line 15: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 11, lines 16-17: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 11, line 17: “the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 11, line 17: “the testers” should apparently read --the plurality of testers--.
In claim 11, line 20: “the results of the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of results of the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 11, lines 20-21: “the specific color temperatures” should apparently read --the plurality of specific color temperatures--.
In claim 11, line 21: “the corresponding multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of corresponding multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 11, line 23: “the results of the BOLD contrast responses” should apparently read --the plurality of results of the plurality of BOLD contrast responses--.
In claim 11, line 25: “the circadian-rhythm parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters--.
In claim 11, line 27: “the multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 11, lines 27-28: “the circadian-rhythm parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters--.
In claim 13, line 2: “the multispectral-lighting parameters” should apparently read --the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters--.
In claim 14, line 6: “on condition” should apparently read --on a condition--.
In claim 15, line 4: “and indirect” should apparently read --and an indirect--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 the limitation “a portable communication device, a management control module, a cloud, an ambient light sensor and a light-emitting device in a space” in lines 2-4. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that the entire lighting system (with all five of these components) is in the space, or rather that only the light-emitting device is in the space.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the multispectral-circadian-rhythm-lighting scenario database stored in the cloud" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; while the claim previously recites a multispectral-circadian-rhythm-lighting scenario database, it does not recite that this database is stored in the cloud.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “after testing a blood or saliva of the illuminator is sampled and conducted an adrenal cortisol test” in lines 35-36. It is not clear what is meant by “conducted an adrenal cortisol test” in this context; is the blood or saliva that is sampled then used to conduct the adrenal cortisol test, or is the adrenal cortisol test conducted in some other way?
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the selected time division" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; while time divisions are previously recited, as well as at least one parameter in a time division, the time divisions themselves are not recited as being selected.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “to correlate with the multispectral-circadian- rhythm-lighting scenario database” in the last two lines. It is not clear what is meant by “correlate” in this context; e.g., how do transmitted parameters correlate with an entire database? Further, even if various parameters may correlate with each other, this is not an actively practiced step but rather a characterization of the data.
Further regarding claim 1, as detailed in the previous Office action, claim limitations “a portable communication device,” “a management control module,” and “a light-emitting device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure or examples are taught for any of these components. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the time divisions are under a daily 24-hour daylight demand cycle”. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; e.g., what does “under” mean in this context? Does this mean that each of the time divisions is part of this demand cycle, or that each time division is a single 24-hour demand cycle, or something else?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation “a correlated database” in line 3. It is not clear if this database is intended to be part of the claimed system and/or if it is intended to be the same as the multispectral-circadian-rhythm-lighting scenario database.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the earth" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the selected multispectral-lighting parameter and the selected circadian-rhythm parameters" in lines 31-32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim only previously recites selecting one of the multispectral-lighting parameters and the circadian-rhythm parameters. It is also noted that this limitation appears in claim 20, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 11 also recites the limitation "the space" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 11 also recites the limitation "the selected circadian-rhythm parameters" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also noted that this limitation appears in claim 14, which may need to be amended in kind.
Further regarding claim 11, as detailed in the previous Office action, claim limitations “a light-emitting device,” “a portable communication device,” and “a management control module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure or examples are taught for any of these components. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the earth" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the relationship" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a lighting system or method of using, comprising such a multispectral-circadian-rhythm-lighting scenario database that comprises a plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters corresponding to a plurality of specific color temperatures that are acquired by a plurality of establishing steps conducted on a plurality of testers with a plurality of known pictures for stimulating the testers to have a plurality of specific emotions, and wherein the establishing steps comprise guiding the testers to see the pictures and recording BOLD contrast responses, along with conducting a plurality of visual simulations by irradiating light to the testers and recording a plurality of results of the BOLD contrast responses for the testers, wherein each of the visual simulations comprises irradiating light with a plurality of different color temperatures and screening the results of the BOLD contrast responses to acquire the specific color temperatures with the corresponding multispectral-lighting parameters, wherein each of the specific color temperatures makes one of the specific emotions reach a maximum response value according to the results of the BOLD contrast responses and a plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters in a plurality of time divisions, wherein the circadian-rhythm parameters at least comprise settings of Equivalent Melanopic Lux (EML), Circadian Action Factor (CAF), sunlight illuminance and color temperature change, in combination with the other recited steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the specification and the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive in light of the amendments. Several rejections have been withdrawn; however, as detailed supra, many persist.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791