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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1D in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Limitation of “and/or” throughout the entire claims, would be clearer as ‘or’.
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, 15-18 and 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The terms “image evaluation device”, “a distortion correction module”, “a module for determining an illuminance, a color or a spectral distribution”, “a distribution module for determining the luminous intensity distribution, the angle-dependent color coordinate distribution or the spectral radiant intensity distribution”, The terms are indefinite because 1) they are not recognized standard structure by the ordinary skill in the art and 2) the specification does not clearly redefine the terms.
Claim limitations 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there is no single structure or structural combinations performing the each claimed limitations in the claim 1.
Also, in claim 15, the claim limitation of “an imaging illumination device for showing information in the wall image and/or next to the wall image on the wall, as a function of the previously determined lighting characteristics” has been evaluated under the tree prong test and the claim 15 is inconclusive either since there is neither known in the art standard structure for the claimed functional limitation nor known in the art imaging illumination device.
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
As a result, it is not clear whether the applicant tried to invoke 112f by the lexicographical word or not.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As further to the claims 15 and 17, the claim recites “having a device for determining the lighting characteristics of the lighting fixture, which is embodied according to claim 1”.
However, it is not clear whether this indicated device is the same with the apparatus claimed in the claim 1 (then it should be indicated as ‘the apparatus for determining the lighting characteristics of the lighting fixture according to claim 1’) or there being any further difference (if it is, the claim further clarifies the difference between those two, i.e., indicate structural differences).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret “image evaluation device”, “a distortion correction module”, “a module for determining an illuminance, a color or a spectral distribution”, “a distribution module for determining the luminous intensity distribution, the angle-dependent color coordinate distribution or the spectral radiant intensity distribution” as appeared in the prior arts of Reiners and Takuo as shown in the below rejection and “an imaging illumination device” as appeared in the prior art of Barrot as shown in the rejection.
As to claim 18, the claim recites “the imaging illumination device or display module”. However, both device or module has not been claimed in the claim 1 which the claim 18 is depending on.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner would consider the claim 18 is including all the limitation of claim 15 and 17. A proper correction is required.
Claims 15-18 and 20 have been rejected also based upon their dependencies.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Reiners et al. (US 12644763 B2 hereinafter Reiners) in view of Takuo et al. (JP H09312198 A hereinafter Takuo).
As to claim 1, Reiners teaches an apparatus for determining the lighting characteristics of a lighting fixture (col. 1 lines 11-13) having a camera for capturing a wall image (9 and 5 in Fig. 1) produced on a wall by the lighting fixture (col. 6 lines 49-54) and for providing a camera image based on the captured wall image and having an image evaluation device for evaluating the camera image (col. 6 lines 54-55), the image evaluation device comprising:
a module for determining an illuminance (col. 19, lines 19-22 and col. 23 and lines 16-25); and
a distribution module for determining the luminous intensity distribution of the lighting fixture based on the illuminance determined by the rectified camera image (col. 24 lines 12-17 and col. 19 lines 26-30).
However, Reiners does not explicitly disclose a distortion correction module for rectifying the camera image.
Takuo teaches a distortion correction module for rectifying the camera image (“The optical data correction unit 26 removes the influence of this distortion, and corrects the data transmitted from the window surface image pickup means 19 and the indoor space image pickup means 22 by optical correction data or a correction formula”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Reiners by having a distortion correction module for rectifying the camera image for the benefit including eliminating influence of image distortion to accurately characterize the lighting fixture only.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiners et al. (US 12644763 B2 hereinafter Reiners) in view of Takuo and in further view of Barrot (FR 2559923 A1 hereinafter Barrot).
As to claims 15, Reiners in view of Takuo teaches an apparatus for visualizing the lighting characteristics of a lighting fixture, having a device for determining the lighting characteristics of the lighting fixture, which is embodied according to claim 1.
However, Reiners does not explicitly disclose having an imaging illumination device for showing information in the wall image and/or next to the wall image on the wall, as a function of the previously determined lighting characteristics.
Barrot teaches an imaging illumination device for showing information in the wall image and/or next to the wall image on the wall, as a function of the previously determined lighting characteristics (“System for making the commented projection of transparent documents on a wall screen 14), characterized in that it comprises at least one electric writing tablet and / or at least one digital memory (6) providing coded digital information (E ), a transparent document projector (2) having a liquid crystal matrix cell (12) for simultaneously or separately projecting on the wall screen (4) an image of the transparent documents and an image of the liquid crystal cell, this cell (12) being controlled by a set of electronic circuits (20) receiving the coded digital information (E) provided by the tablet and / or the memory”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Reiners by having an imaging illumination device for showing information in the wall image and/or next to the wall image on the wall, as a function of the previously determined lighting characteristics for the benefit including accommodating user accessibility to the measurement information for further use of the information.
As to claim 16, Reiners in view of Takuo and Barrot teaches the apparatus according to claim 15.
However, Reiners does not explicitly disclose the imaging illumination device comprises a projector.
Barrot teaches the imaging illumination device comprises a projector (“Transparent document projectors and their variants such as overhead projectors and opaque document projectors are still known, which are simple and effective devices (brightness and contrast satisfactory) and whose interest has been reinforced with the possibility of easy use of transparencies by photocopy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Reiners by the imaging illumination device comprises a projector for the benefit including using known in the art simple and effective information reproduction method.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiners et al. (US 12644763 B2 hereinafter Reiners) in view of Takuo and in further view of Хотеев et al. (RU 142383 U1).
As to claim 17, Reiners in view of Takuo teaches an apparatus for visualizing the lighting characteristics of a lighting fixture, having a device for determining the lighting characteristics of the lighting fixture, which is embodied according to claim 1.
However, Reiners does not explicitly disclose having a display device comprising a screen for displaying the camera image and/or the rectified camera image, wherein the display device comprises an overlay module for showing information on the screen as a function of the lighting characteristics previously determined from the camera image.
Хотеев teaches having a display device comprising a screen for displaying the camera image and/or the rectified camera image, wherein the display device comprises an overlay module for showing information on the screen as a function of the lighting characteristics previously determined from the camera image (“A device for displaying information with internal lighting, comprising a housing having a light-diffusing front wall, comprising images, light-transmitting side walls and at least one light source”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Reiners by having a display device comprising a screen for displaying the camera image and/or the rectified camera image, wherein the display device comprises an overlay module for showing information on the screen as a function of the lighting characteristics previously determined from the camera image for the benefit including accommodating user accessibility to the measurement information for further use of the information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As to claim 18, none of the prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach of
pixel and/or image area selection means are provided for selecting a pixel and/or image area that is of interest in the camera image and/or in the rectified camera image, wherein the image evaluation device is adapted to determine the lighting characteristics for the selected pixel and/or image area, and wherein the imaging illumination device and/or the display module of the display device are embodied to display the lighting characteristics, which are determined for the selected pixel and/or image area, in the pixel and/or image area of the wall image and/or camera image displayed on the display device, which corresponds to the selected pixel and/or image area along with other limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 is indicated as allowable due to their dependencies only.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W and R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
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.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights