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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-4, 9-15, 19, and 20.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12: “are acquired” should apparently read --is acquired--.
In claim 1, line 13: “are conducted” should apparently read --is conducted--.
In claim 1, line 31: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 1, line 37: “are selected” should apparently read --is selected--.
In claim 2, line 2: “are based” should apparently read --is based--.
In claim 3, line 3: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 10, line 1: “A The” should apparently read --The--.
In claim 10, line 3: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 11, line 2: “light emitting” should apparently read --light-emitting--.
In claim 11, lines 8-9: “are acquired” should apparently read --is acquired--.
In claim 11, line 10: “are conducted” should apparently read --is conducted--.
In claim 11, line 12: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 11, line 28: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 13, line 3: “comprise” should apparently read --comprises--.
In claim 14, line 3: “reach” should apparently read --reaches--.
In claim 14, line 6: “do not” should apparently read --does not--.
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 light-emitting device” in line 3. As detailed previously, this limitation invokes 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. While the specification does teach LED lamps, it never specifies that these components are examples of the recited light-emitting device. 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 1 also recites the limitation “transmitting the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters in the selected at least one of the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters and the psychological stress index value to the cloud” in lines 42-44. This limitation does not make sense; how are the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters transmitted in themselves (or in the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters)? This limitation should apparently read --transmitting
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the psychological stress values" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a single psychological stress value has been previously recited.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a light emitting device” in line 2. As detailed previously, this limitation invokes 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. While the specification does teach LED lamps, it never specifies that these components are examples of the recited light emitting device. 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 11 also recites the limitation “the selected at least one of the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the selected plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters” in lines 35-36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, there is no antecedent basis for “at least one” as the claim only previously recites “selecting one.” Further, as the claim previously recites “selecting one of the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters,” there is no antecedent basis for both the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters to be selected. This limitation should apparently read --the selected
Claim 11 also recites the limitation “the selected plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters” in line 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should apparently read --the selected one of the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters.
Claim 20 also recites “the selected at least one of the plurality of multispectral-lighting parameters and the selected plurality of circadian-rhythm parameters,” which should apparently be amended in the same manner as claim 11.
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: as detailed previously, 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 claim objections 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(b) have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive in light of the amendments. Most of the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the “light-emitting device” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specification teaches a plurality of LED lamps. While the examiner agrees that the specification teaches such, the specification never specifies that these lamps are examples of the recited light-emitting device; consistently throughout the specification they are discussed as alternatives. In other words, the specification teaches elements A (lamps) and B (light-emitting devices), but never teaches that one is a sub-set of the other, and never describes the structure of the light-emitting devices. To obviate this rejection, Applicant is suggested to recite lamps or LED lamps in place of light-emitting devices.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights