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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens et al. (US 2017/0184288) in view of Jost et al. (US 2020/0149989).
Regarding to claims 1, 14-15:
Owens discloses a luminaire system (FIG. 1, element 10) comprising:
a lighting unit being adapted to provide light in the visible spectrum (FIG. 1, elements 11-15),
a housing (FIG. 1, element 25) containing at least a part of the lighting unit, the lighting unit and the housing being parts of a luminaire,
a sensing means positioned at or within the housing adapted to sense a functional parameter indicative of a functional characteristic of the luminaire that is influenced by water ingress into at least a part of an inner structure of the luminaire, the functional characteristic referring to a characteristic of the luminaire that is functionally related to a function of the luminaire, the sensing means being adapted to sense the functional parameter of the luminaire at different operational states of the lighting unit (paragraph [0042]: One or more sensors may monitor the conditions and transmits the monitored data at fixed time intervals and/or occurrence of a triggering event, such as turning on and/or off of the lamination device), the functional parameter is indicative of a pressure within at least a part of the housing of the luminaire and of a temperature of the luminaire (FIG. 5: One or more sensors 39. Paragraph [0036]: One or more sensors may include a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor); and
a water ingress determination unit being adapted to determine water ingress into at least a part of the inner structure of the luminaire, the water ingress determination unit being further adapted to utilize a functional relation between an amount of at least one of water or water vapor present in the inner structure of the luminaire and the functional parameter (paragraph [0039]: With the humidity sensor, the moisture (water vapor) in the housing is measured for further indicating a potential of short-circuiting, presence of particulates like dust).
Owens however does not teach wherein the water ingress determination unit being adapted to determine water ingress into at least a part of the inner structure of the luminaire based on a relation between the pressure and the temperature.
Jost et al. discloses a method for detecting a water ingress into an interior of a housing (Abstract), wherein the water ingress is determined based on a relation between the pressure and the temperature (paragraph [0003] and equation (1): The air humidity is water vapor mass mw contained in an air volume V and determined based on the pressure of water vapor ew and the temperature T).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Owens’s method to determine the water ingress based on the pressure and the temperature to be able to obtain a rapid detection with an ingress of very small water quantities into the housing as taught by Jost et al. (paragraph [0013]).
Owens also discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claim 2: wherein the water ingress determination unit is adapted to determine the water ingress into at least a part of an inner structure of the luminaire by comparing a sensed functional parameter with a predetermined baseline of this parameter (paragraph [0039]: The humidity or moisture is compared to a threshold level).
Regarding to claim 3: wherein the baseline of the functional parameter is predetermined based on a parameter model that is adapted to model the functional parameter of the lighting unit with respect to at least one of an ambient environmental condition, an operational, and a water ingress state of the lighting unit (It is conventional that the ambient environment condition (such as rain, snow, ice) should have an effect on the humidity level inside the light housing. Please see Ball et al. (WO 2009/131624) “changes in the environment and vehicle operation can cause moisture to condense on the interior of the lamp enclosure” (first paragraph, first page)).
Jost et al. also discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claim 16: wherein the water ingress determination unit is adapted to determine the water ingress based on a deviation of the relation between the sensed pressure and the sensed temperature from a baseline relation between the pressure and the temperature determined for the inner structure of the luminaire without water present (FIGs. 4a-b show the deviation between the states of water present (FIG. 4b) and without water present (FIG. 4a)).
Regarding to claim 17: wherein water ingress increases a thermal mass of the luminaire such that a temperature response of the luminaire during the change of the lighting unit from one operational state to another is retarded relative to a baseline recorded without water present, and wherein the water ingress determination unit is adapted to determine the water ingress based on the retarded temperature response (Based on the ideal gas law and Jost’s paragraphs [0003]-[0005], there is a relationship between the moisture/water vapor density and the temperature in an enclosed environment; as a result the variance of the measured temperature indicates the change of the amount of water ingress).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens et al. (US 2017/0184288) in view of Jost et al. (US 2020/0149989) and further in view of Jiang (US 2020/0193796).
Owens et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the water ingress determination unit is adapted to determine water ingress into at least a part of an inner structure of the luminaire based on a comparison of the functional parameters determined at different operational states of the lighting unit.
Jiang discloses a humidity alarm monitoring system for a stage light comprising a humidity sensor located inside the chamber of the stage light (Abstract), wherein the sensed humidity is compared to different thresholds at different operational states of the stage light (FIG. 2 shows the comparison of the detected humidity level to the second threshold and the first threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to modify the determination in Owens’ light fixture, as modified, to compare the detected humidity level to multiple different thresholds to provide alarm and protection of the light fixture due to excessive humidity as taught by Jiang (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding to claim 18: wherein the change of the lighting unit from one operational state to another comprises a transition from an on-state to an off-state, and wherein the water ingress determination unit is adapted to determine the water ingress based on a deviation of the sensed pressure and the sensed temperature during a cool-down phase following the transition from a baseline determined without water present (Jiang, paragraph [0019]: The light source driver controls the state of the light source to be turned on or off, wherein the light source to be turned off when the humidity exceeds the second humidity threshold to a cool-down phase).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the rejection above for newly citations and explanations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights