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 application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 8/23/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Jessica Han/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko (KR 20200049037 A; see translation).
With regards to claim 1. Ko discloses:
(currently amended) A lighting controller (fig. 1-11) operable to:
determine, from an access control system (20, 70; fig 3; [0028-0029]), whether a user has been granted access to an area ([0066]) containing a lighting device (“lighting”; [0067]) based on purchase of a service to be performed in the area ([0056-0059]; the examiner takes the position that hotels and motels involves services to be performed);
receive an input from an external device (see input in user interface in fig 4; [0047]); and
control a function of the lighting device based on the input received from the external device ([0047]), wherein control is enabled during performance of the service in the area ([0044-0046]).
With regards to claim 2. Ko discloses:
(original) The lighting controller of claim 1, wherein the external device is controlled by the user (see input in user interface in fig 4; [0047]) and, in the case that it is determined that the user has been granted access to the area containing the lighting device, the input received from the external device is used to control the function of the lighting device ([0044-0046]).
With regards to claim 4. Ko discloses:
(original) The lighting controller of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user has been granted access to the area containing the lighting device includes receiving a signal from the access control system (20, 70; fig 3; [0028-0029]) that the user has been granted access to the area containing the lighting device by the access control system [0043-0044].
With regards to claim 5. Ko discloses:
(currently amended) The lighting controller of claim 4, wherein the access granted by the access control system is limited to a duration of the service (see dates [0044-0046]).
With regards to claim 6. Ko discloses:
(currently amended) The lighting controller of claim 4, wherein the access granted by the access control system is limited to a predetermined time period (see dates [0044-0046]).
With regards to claim 8. Ko discloses:
(original) The lighting controller of claim 1, wherein the external device is a cellular telephone (see smartphone; [0040]).
With regards to claim 9. Ko discloses:
(currently amended) A lighting device control system comprising: the lighting controller of claim 1; at least one lighting device connected to the lighting controller; and
an access control system (20, 70; fig 3; [0028-0029]) operable to grant to and revoke from a user access to an area containing a lighting device [0066-0067].
With regards to claim 10. Ko discloses:
(new) A method of controlling lighting in a service area (fig. 1-11), the method comprising:
determining whether a user has been granted access to the service area ([0066]);
determining whether a service is being provided in the service area ([0056-0059]; the examiner takes the position that hotels and motels involves services to be performed);
receiving an input from an external device (see input in user interface in fig 4; [0047]); and
controlling a function of at least one lighting device within the service area using the input from the external device ([0047]) if it is determined that the user has been granted access to the service area and that the service is being provided in the service area ([0044-0046]).
With regards to claim 11. Ko discloses:
(new) The method of claim 10, wherein determining whether the user has been granted access to the service area includes determining whether the user has purchased a service to be provided in the service area ([0056-0059]; the examiner takes the position that hotels and motels involves services to be performed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049037 A; see translation) in view of Deros (US 20200397936 A1).
With regards to claim 3. Ko discloses:
(currently amended) The lighting controller of claim 2,
Ko further disclose(s):
wherein, in the case that it is determined that the user has not been granted access to the area containing the lighting device,
Ko does not disclose(s):
wherein, in the case that it is determined that the user is not present in the area containing the lighting device, the lighting controller is further operable to control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device
Deros teaches:
wherein, in the case that it is determined that the user is not present in the area containing the lighting device, the lighting controller is further operable to control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device (see light being dimmed while space is “vacant” in [0146]; the examiner takes the position that a space being vacant involves before, during, and after reservation period i.e. while user has not been granted access).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Ko by implementing in the case that it is determined that the user is not present in the area containing the lighting device, the lighting controller is further operable to control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device as disclosed by Deros in order to default multiple energy consuming units to save energy as taught/suggested by Deros ([0146]).
With regards to claim 7. Ko discloses:
(original) The lighting controller of claim 6,
Ko further disclose(s):
further operable to: control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device (see wall switch 82; fig 3; [0054])
Ko does not disclose(s):
further operable to: control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device upon expiration of the predetermined time period
Deros teaches:
further operable to: control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device upon expiration of the predetermined time period (see light being dimmed while space is “vacant” in [0146]; the examiner takes the position that a space being vacant involves before, during, and after reservation period i.e. while user has not been granted access).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Ko by implementing control the function of the lighting device independent of the input received from the external device upon expiration of the predetermined time period as disclosed by Deros in order to default multiple energy consuming units to save energy as taught/suggested by Deros ([0146]).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049037 A; see translation) in view of Shi (CN-108594741-A; see translated portion)
With regards to claim 12. Ko discloses:
(new) The method of claim 10,
Ko does not disclose(s):
wherein the service is a vehicle wash service.
Shi teaches:
wherein the service is a vehicle wash service (see “adjusting the brightness”; [5th paragraph in pag 9]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Ko by implementing the service being a vehicle wash service as disclosed by Shi in order to adjust lighting according to health requirements of a user using an unmanned service as taught/suggested by Shi ([5th paragraph in pag 9]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of Ko (method of controlling lighting of an unmanned space according to a user having a granted access) to the know device of Shi (unmanned vehicle wash service) yielding the predictable result of controlling multiple units including lighting within an unmanned vehicle wash service.
With regards to claim 13. Ko discloses:
(new) The method of claim 11,
wherein access to the service area is granted only for a time required to provide the
Ko does not disclose(s):
the service area provides the vehicle wash service.
Shi teaches:
the service area provides the vehicle wash service (see “adjusting the brightness”; [5th paragraph in pag 9]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Ko by implementing the service area provides the vehicle wash service as disclosed by Shi in order to adjust lighting according to health requirements of a user using an unmanned service as taught/suggested by Shi ([5th paragraph in pag 9]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of Ko (method of controlling lighting of an unmanned space according to a user having a granted access) to the know device of Shi (unmanned vehicle wash service) yielding the predictable result of controlling multiple units including lighting within an unmanned vehicle wash service.
With regards to claim 14. Ko as modified discloses:
(new) The method of claim 13,
Ko further disclose(s):
further comprising: determining whether the time required to provide the
Shi further disclose(s):
provide the vehicle wash service has expired ([2nd paragraph in page 6]).
With regards to claim 15. Ko as modified discloses:
(new) The method of claim 14,
Ko further disclose(s):
further comprising: ceasing control of the function of the at least one lighting device if it is determined that the time required to provide
Shi further disclose(s):
provide the vehicle wash service has expired ([2nd paragraph in page 6]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 2nd and 3rd paragraph in page 6 of the Appeal Brief, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ko (KR 20200049037 A; see translation) and Deros (US 20200397936 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Renan Luque whose telephone number is (571)270-1044. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached on 571-272-2078. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RENAN LUQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896