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 § 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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites “the control board”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 5, 6, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker (US 2012/0080944 A1) in view of Kuo (US 2005/0127842 A1).
With respect to Claim 5 Recker teaches An emergency lighting system comprising (See Para[0033]): a plurality of LED lighting fixtures which are normally powered by line power in normal operation at a normal power level to provide lighting when line power is available (See Para[0023]); at least one of the LED lighting fixtures having an emergency lighting control module that allows the LED lighting fixture to be converted from a normal lighting fixture to an emergency lighting fixture when line power is not available (See Para[0033]); a central battery system having at least one battery that provides direct current backup power to each LED lighting fixture that has the emergency lighting control module (See Para[0033]); each battery of the central battery system being located remote from the LED lighting fixtures (See Fig 99); a transfer switch configured to electrically connect the at least one battery of the central battery system to each LED lighting fixture that has the emergency lighting control module when the line power is not available through a direct current, hard wired connection (See Para[0033]); and the emergency lighting control module powering the LED lighting fixture at an emergency power level different than the normal power level for emergency operation to preserve battery power (See Para[0298]). However Recker is silent to the language of a battery charger connected to the line power; the battery charger maintaining the at least one battery in a charged condition when the line power is available; Nevertheless Kuo teaches a battery charger connected to the line power (See Para[0005]); the battery charger maintaining the at least one battery in a charged condition when the line power is available (See Para[0005]); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Recker and have a battery charger connected to the line power; and wherein the battery charger maintaining the at least one battery in a charged condition when the line power is available such as that of Kuo. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Recker, because connecting to line power would allow for the battery to be properly charged and be available when an emergency occurs. With respect to Claim 6 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, wherein an IP address is provided for each of the LED lighting fixtures. (See Para [0315]). With respect to Claim 12 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, wherein at least one of the plurality of LED lighting fixtures is an exit sign. (See Para[0150] With respect to Claim 13 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, wherein each of a plurality of the LED lighting fixtures includes an emergency lighting control module that allows that LED lighting fixture to be powered by the central battery system when line power is not available.(See Para[0033]) With respect to Claim 14 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, further comprising a battery temperature sensor which is adapted to disconnect the battery charger. (See Para[0495]) With respect to Claim 15 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, further comprising a temperature sensor which is adapted to start a cooling fan for the central battery system at a specified temperature (See Para[0422]). With respect to Claim 16 Recker teaches The system of claim 5, further comprising a voltage sensor that disconnects batteries from the LED lighting fixtures when the voltage drops (See Para[0682]) However Recker is silent to the language of to less than 87.5 percent of a set rated voltage. Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disconnect when the voltage drops to less than 87.5 percent of a set rated voltage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner notes the prior art fails to teach or make obvious claims 7-10, 17-19 Examiner notes prior art could not be applied to claim 11 due to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights