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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the sentence beginning on line 2 starting with “The plate device…” is a fragment. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 37, Line 7: The word “an” before “environmental” is not needed because of the plural word “conditions”.
Paragraph 46, Line 11: The verb “displayed” should read –display--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “computing module configured to be in communication” in claim 1 and “display module configured to display” in claim 9.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 9 limitation “display module”: Paragraph 40: electronic paper screen, a touch screen, and an interactive screen.
If applicant wishes to further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitation “computing module” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no specific structure or software or code to specifically delineate what the computing module actually is. Is it hardware or software? Computer code? The specification is not forthcoming regarding this module.
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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, the specification mentions the claim limitation “computing module”; however, there is no recitation of specific hardware, software or electronics in order to achieve the functional language mentioned in the claim. Therefore, this does not comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al [U.S. 12,072,464] in view of Ribbich et al [U.S. 10,677,484].
For claim 1, the interactive plate apparatus (cover plate 101) taught by Patel includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed electronic light switch accessory device is met by the motion sensor assembly (No. 100) mounted to a surface at least partially surrounding a light switch (see Fig. 1A), the electronic light switch accessory device comprising 2) at least one opening (central aperture 107) sized to receive the light switch (No. 121), 3) one or more light emitting elements (No. 105) disposed on the electronic light switch, 4) a computing module (microcontroller No. 237) configured to be in communication with the one or more light emitting elements (user interface No. 247) and the electronic light switch accessory device, and 5) one or more sensors (Nos. 113 and 239) configured to collect information related to an environment surrounding the electronic light switch accessory device (Col. 4, Lns. 56-58: additional sensors may include temperature sensors, light sensors, noise sensors, humidity sensors, sensors of hazardous gases), wherein the one or more sensors are in communication with the electronic light switch accessory device (e.g. see Figs. 2 and 3). Although the Patel reference does mention the light emitting element can be two or more colors as well as other displays such as LCD or alphanumeric display (Col. 8, Ln. 62 – Col. 9, Ln. 1), the Patel reference does not specifically state the LED communicates information to a user.
Using light switch accessories in order to communicate information to a user is not new in the prior art. The user control device in a home control system taught by Ribbich includes a system that uses a control unit (No. 100) that displays information the user or homeowner of weather conditions. Also, a plurality of sensor units (No. 734) may be used in conjunction with a main control unit (No. 732) that can be installed in various zones in the home. As seen in Figures 7C and 7D, these sensor units may be installed in conjunction with a gang box commonly found in houses. More importantly, Figures 7F and 7G depict these sensor units installed in conjunction with light switches, one having a display on one half of the light switch cover plate. Moreover, the architecture of the sensor unit (Fig. 7H) depicts several sensors such as temperature, humidity, light, and occupancy sensors in said unit wherein an output via the display screen can be conveyed in addition to sensing conditions within the room or zone (Col. 20, Lns. 24-28).
The Ribbich reference presents plain evidence that sensors and displays have been incorporated into light switch assemblies for some time. And the Patel reference already includes sensors as well as an option for displays in its apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the displays of Patel to communicate information gathered from the sensors of Patel in order to use an easily configured and compact system to communicate needed information directly to the user of the motion detector.
For claim 2, the Patel reference (Col. 8, Ln. 66 – Col. 9, Ln. 1) as well as the Ribbich reference (Fig. 7G) both comprise display modules.
For claim 3, the display screen of Ribbich may output information in addition to sensing conditions within the room or zone (Col. 20, Lns. 23-28).
For claim 4, the display (No. 740) of Ribbich may be an electronic paper screen (Col. 22, Lns. 41-42).
For claim 5, the sensors found in Ribbich may include a temperature sensor (No. 702), humidity sensor (No. 706), light sensor (No. 708), and occupancy sensor (No. 714) as well as other sensors such as air quality, oxygen, carbon monoxide and smoke (Col. 22, Lns. 34-38). In addition to the output (Col. 20, Lns. 24-28) of Ribbich mentioned above, the sensor units may display a safe evacuation route via the display screens (Col. 22, Lns. 18-20).
For claim 6, the display module of Ribbich is a screen (Col. 20, Ln. 24).
For claim 7, the lens (No. 111) of the motion sensor (No. 113) of Patel may be used to detect a pyroelectric element as a person moves across the field of view (Col. 3, Lns. 46-49).
For claim 8, in one embodiment found in Patel (Col. 5, Lns. 9-13), sensor readings may decrease in response to no detected motion, thereby saving power.
For claim 9, the light switch accessory (No. 100) at least partially surrounding a light switch (see Fig. 1A) taught by Patel includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed at least one opening to receive the light switch is met by the central aperture (No. 107) to receive the switch (No. 121), 2) the claimed one or more sensors is met by the motion sensor (No. 113) and additional sensors (No. 239) configured to receive information from an environment surrounding the light switch accessory (Col. 4, Lns. 56-58). However, although the reference does mention displays (Col. 8, Ln. 66 – Col. 9, Ln. 1), there is no mention of displaying information received from the one or more sensors.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 11, the Patel reference may communicate to an external processor (No. 451) such as a smartphone (Col. 10, Lns. 46-47). Also, Figure 5 of Patel will communicate with a software application running on a mobile device (No. 565) such as a smartphone (Col. 12, Lns. 42-43). Also, the system of Ribbich may send push notifications to a user’s cellphone (Fig. 26A, No. 5004).
For claim 12, the display (No. 740) of Ribbich may be an electronic paper screen (Col. 22, Lns. 41-42).
For claim 14, the sensors found in Ribbich may include a temperature sensor (No. 702), humidity sensor (No. 706), light sensor (No. 708), and occupancy sensor (No. 714) as well as other sensors such as air quality, oxygen, carbon monoxide and smoke (Col. 22, Lns. 34-38).
For claim 15, the method of displaying information on a light switch accessory taught by Patel includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed detecting information from an environment where in the light switch is positioned is achieved using the additional sensors (No. 239) that may detect temperature, light, noise, or humidity (Col. 4, Lns. 56-58) or a camera (Col. 12, Lns. 7-10) triggered by a motion event, and 2) the claimed detecting a user’s presence is achieved using the motion sensor (No. 113). However, although the reference does mention displays (Col. 8, Ln. 66 – Col. 9, Ln. 1), there is no mention of displaying information received from the one or more sensors.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 16, the Patel reference may communicate to an external processor (No. 451) such as a smartphone (Col. 10, Lns. 46-47). Also, Figure 5 of Patel will communicate with a software application running on a mobile device (No. 565) such as a smartphone (Col. 12, Lns. 42-43). Also, the system of Ribbich may send push notifications to a user’s cellphone (Fig. 26A, No. 5004).
For claim 17, in one embodiment found in Patel (Col. 5, Lns. 9-13), sensor readings may decrease in response to no detected motion, thereby saving power.
Claims 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al in view of Ribbich et al as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Ramirez [U.S. 11,386,770] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 10, the LED of Patel may include two or more colors (Col. 8, Ln. 62). However, the reference does not mention using the colors to represent a predetermined set of information.
Different colors have been used to display different sets of information for some time. The light switch apparatus taught by Ramirez includes a communication unit and output unit that is to receive and display information relating to electricity price rate (Abstract). One method used to convey this information is using different colored LEDs. In one embodiment (Col. 4, Lns. 15-19), the colors include a plurality of colors corresponding to prices ranges. These colors are shown in Figures 3A-3C. Furthermore, color displays (No. 110) may be used embedded in the switch buttons (No. 122) to convey additional information such as weather temperature, and status of energy bills.
Both the Patel and Ribbich reference mention both LEDs as well as different types of displays in order to convey their information. And the Ramirez reference shows that different colors may be used in order to convey different types of information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the information of Patel or Ribbich in different colors in order to provide an easily noticeable display that uses already existing technology present in each reference.
For claim 13, three separate colors are present in the Ramirez reference (Figs. 3A-3C) to present three levels of alert. Furthermore, the colored displays (Figs. 4A-4C) are to present different categories of information.
For claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al in view of Ribbich et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fadell et al [U.S. 9,960,929].
For claim 19, there is no mention of a projector in either the Patel or Ribbich references to display information.
Projectors have been used in light switches in the prior art, with the Fadell reference presenting one such example. The Fadell apparatus can provide home security and smart home objectives. In one embodiment seen in Figures 4A-4C, a smart wall switch (No. 108) is used to enhance the smart-home environment by providing a retrofit wall switch that incorporates a host of sensing, interface, and communications capabilities while maintaining the basic character and purpose of a light switch (Col. 49, Lns. 57-60). A user interface (No. 424) may be incorporated to provide a visual display or touchscreen (Col. 51, Lns. 34-35). One important aspect of the Fadell reference is to instantly show an image on the dial of a light switch or project the image in 2D or 3D holographic form from the smart switch of those rooms where occupancy is sensed (Col. 51, Lns. 53-58).
The Fadell reference presents plain evidence that projection units have been used to display certain information not only through light switches, but only on light switches of rooms where occupancy is sensed. And both the Patel and Ribbich references contain motion or occupancy sensors as well as displays to be incorporated into a light switch. A projected image such as that of Fadell would definitely be noticed by someone in the room. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a projector in either the Patel or the Ribbich reference for the purpose of providing a more noticeable indication of information than a plain display.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baker [US 2006/0209213] relates to a video system with a paper screen.
Patel et al [U.S. 10,161,646] includes a cover plate mounted to an electrical box.
O’Keeffe [U.S. 10,401,561] uniformly illuminates a cover for a light switch.
Ribbich et al [U.S. 10,907,844] includes a thermostat to measure environmental conditions of a room with remote sensor units.
Patel et al [U.S. 11,009,244] couples a motion sensor to a light switch cover plate.
Algie et al [U.S. 11,418,636] incorporates a display in a smart light switch.
Rintz et al [U.S. 12,244,766] is a combination light switch cover/communicator device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
12/19/2025
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689