DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 09/29/2025. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 2 and 5-10 were previously canceled;
Claim 4 is canceled;
Claim 1 is currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1 and 3 is pending;
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 § 112
The previous rejection to claims 1 and 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn/moot in view of the amended/cancel claims.
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 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the first sensed signal” on line 9 which renders the claim infinite, as the term presents improper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the recites “first sensed signal” is the same as “a first sensed signal” recited on line 18.
Regarding claims 3, the claim is rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 1 form which it depends, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the base claim from which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the low-voltage power source module is configured to power the intelligent predicting control sensing device” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether “the low-voltage power source module” recited in claim 3 or “the built-in power source” recited in claim 1 is the power source for the sensing device.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US6,685,332B1 hereinafter “Clark” in view of US2018/0195706A1 hereinafter “Chemel” in view of US2018/0310389A1 hereinafter “Recker”
Regarding claims 1, Clark discloses a lighting device (Col.9 L22-23: rope light) having intelligent predicting function, comprising:
a driving module (Co.9 L16: DC power supply);
a light source (Col.9 L22-23: rope light) connected to the driving module (as shown in Fig.11 for example); and
an intelligent predicting control module (Col.9L22: delay timer) connected to the driving module (as shown in Fig.11 for example) and configured to communicate with an intelligent predicting sensing device (Col.9L17-19: first motion detector) disposed at a position away from the intelligent predicting control module (Col.9 L17-19: the first motion detector is placed a the bottom of the stairs); wherein
the intelligent predicting sensing device comprise a predicting sensing module (Col.9L17-19: first motion detector) (Note: a motion detector would inherently discloses a motion sensor) configured to generate the first sensing signal;
the intelligent predicting sensing device is configured to detect a moving object to generate a first sensing signal and transmit the first sensing signal to the intelligent predicting control module, whereby the intelligent predicting control module turns on the light source via the driving module. (Col.9 L12-19: a low voltage DC power supply is turned on by the first motion detector when a person walks past it)
another intelligent predicting sensing device (Col.9L19: second motion detector) is configured to detect the moving object to generate a second sensing signal and transmit the second sensing signal to the intelligent predicting control module (Col.9 L19-24: when a person walk past the second motion detector, a signal turns the power off ) and turn off the light source via the driving module after the delay time passes (Col.9 L21-24: the delay timer delays the termination of power to the rope light for a predetermined amount of time), whereby the moving object does not perceive a process of switching the lighting source from the an on state to an off state. (inherently disclosed, as the person has already left the area, after the suggested 5 minutes of delay time)
Clark does not disclose:
the intelligent predicting control module is configured to calculate a delay time according to a moving speed of the moving object, and turn off the light source after the delay time passes.
Chemel discloses an occupancy sensing unit for an light fixture wherein
the intelligent predicting control module is configured to calculate a delay time according to a moving speed of the moving object (¶52L1-30: estimates moving object’s velocity and predicts the moving object’s trajectory from the occupancy sensor), and turn off the light source after the delay time passes. (¶52L1-30: determine how long the lighting fixture remains on based on the object’s estimated velocity, e.g., it may reduce the sensor delay for object moving at higher speeds and increase the sensor delay for object moving at lower speeds)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the lighting system disclosed by Clark to incorporate the speed and control application disclosed by Chemel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this provides variable lighting fixture timeout to provide an adjustable amount of time between the end of occupancy event and the moment that the lighting fixture goes into an inactive state (Chemel ¶21), in order to save more electricity. (Chemel ¶2)
Clark in view of Chemel hereinafter “Clark/Chemel” does not disclose:
an ambient light sensing module connected to the intelligent predicting control module and configured to generate an ambient light sensing signal, wherein the intelligent predicting control module is configured to determine whether a brightness of an ambient light is less than the default threshold according to the ambient light sensing signal; and
turn on the light source when the brightness of the ambient light is less than the default threshold or keep the light source in an off state when the brightness of the ambient light is not less than the default threshold, and
turn off the light source after the delay time, when the brightness of the ambient light is less than the default threshold or still keep the light source in the off state after the delay time passes when the brightness of the ambient light is not less than the default threshold.
Williams discloses an override unit for an ocuupancy sensor wherein an ambient light sensor is used to detect ambient light and the occupancy sensor is activated when ambient light is below a predetermined level and to deactivate the ocuupancy sensor is disabled when ambient light is above predetermine threshold. (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the lighting system disclosed by Clark/Chemel to incorporate the override unit disclosed by William.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this prevents the light assembly from being actuated when the light level is sufficient to avoid the need for actuating the light assembly. (William Abstract)
Clark/Chemel in view of William hereinafter “Clark/Chemel/William” does not explicitly disclose:
a power supplying module configured to power the predicting sensing module to serve as a built-in power source, wherein the power supply module is a rechargeable battery.
Recker discloses a lighting system wherein a wireless motion sensor are battery powered (¶311: the motion sensor can be powered by the batteries or by AC power source)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the motion sensor disclosed by Clark/Chemel/William to utilize the battery powered motion as disclosed by Recker.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Clark contemplates in Col.9 L32-33 that a wireless motion detector can also be used in order to simply wiring, thus using a wireless battery powered motion sensor is considered to be a one-to-one replacement of a wired version.
Regarding claim 3, Clark/Chemel/William in view of Recker hereinafter “Clark/Chemel/William/Recker” discloses in Clark the lighting device having intelligent predicting function as claimed in claim 1, further comprising
a low-voltage power source module connected to the driving module, the intelligent predicting control module and the intelligent predicting sensing device (as shown in Fig.11), wherein the driving module is configured to power the low-voltage power source module, and the low-voltage power source module is configured to power the intelligent predicting control module and the intelligent predicting sensing device. (Col.9 L12-19: a low voltage DC power supply is turned on by the first motion detector when a person walks past it)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, specifically, “the built-in power source” is disclosed by Recker.
Applicant further argued “Chemel does not mention any technical mean related to ambient light sensing function” and “William does not mention any technical means related to moving object detection” which amounts to arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844