DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/02/26 has been received and entered in the case. In view of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection based on Gupta et al are now set forth.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3 of paragraph [0049], the word "active" should be changed to --activate--, and on the last line of this paragraph, the word "light" should be changed to --lights--. On line 3 of paragraph [0050], the word "provides" should be changed to --provide--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (EP 4270341) in view of any one of Takayashiki (USPAP 2024/0292507), Yin (USPAP 2017/0046930) and Simmons (USPAP 2016/0247369).
As to claim 1, Gupta et al discloses, in figure 4, an emergency lighting system, comprising:
an interior emergency light (either the illuminated exit signs adjacent to each of the exit doors 104, as shown in figures 4, 6 and 8 of Gupta et al, or the illuminated arrows 164, 166 shown in figures 4 and 8 of Gupta et al) disposed adjacent an exit door (104) and configured to illuminate the exit door (note that both the illuminated exit signs and the illuminated arrows 164, 166 will illuminate the exit door 104 that they are adjacent to);
a plurality of floor lights (floor lights 134a) disposed in a row on a floor, the plurality of floor lights configured to illuminate an aisle, wherein each floor light of the plurality of floor lights is configured to be controlled individually and separately from the other plurality of floor lights such that the plurality of floor lights are configured to be illuminated sequentially (as indicated in the previous office action, although such is not disclosed by Gupta et al, activating floor lights 134a in this manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to activate floor lights sequentially in order to guide one or more individuals to travel in an appropriate direction, three examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Takayashiki (note figures 4 and 5 and what is indicated in paragraphs [0068] through [0070]), Yin (note what is indicated in paragraph [0027]) and Simmons (note figure 1 and what is indicated in paragraph [0060]), the motivation for activating floor lights 134a in this manner in Gupta et al's figure 4 is self-evident, i.e., to enable the passengers to more easily determine the appropriate exit pathway during the emergency situation); and
a controller (controller 140, see figure 7 of Gupta et al) operatively coupled to the interior emergency light and the plurality of floor lights (inherently in Gupta et al controller 140 is operatively coupled to the above-noted interior emergency light and also to the plurality of floor lights 134a) and configured to activate the interior emergency light in response to an emergency and to activate each of the plurality of floor lights to indicate a first direction to the exit door (inherently in Gupta et al controller 140 is configured to activate the above-noted interior emergency light in response to an emergency and activate each of the plurality of floor lights 134a to indicate a direction to the nearest exit door 104), and update each of the plurality of floor lights to indicate a second direction to a different exit door (although not disclosed by Gupta et al, this limitation also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the floor light arrows 134a should be updated to indicate a second direction to a different exit door in the situation that the exit door that the passengers are being directed towards becomes non-functional for any reason, i.e., if one of the several different door sensors senses a problem with the exit door that the passengers are being led towards, Gupta et al's controller 140 will receive such an indication from the sensor and, based on the teachings of this reference, should obviously stop directing the passengers toward the exit door with the problem, and instead update the floor light arrows 134a to direct the passengers away from the exit door with the problem--applicant should also note that such updating of the direction of the floor light arrows 134a in Gupta et al would also obviously be needed for the likely situation where initially only a first exit door is opened and is being used to evacuate passengers, and then at a subsequent point in time, an additional exit door is opened and is similarly being used for evacuating passengers, i.e., when only a first exit door is opened, all of the passengers on the aircraft will obviously be directed toward that single exit door, and then subsequently when a second exit door is opened, those passengers which are closer to the second exit door should obviously be rerouted to the second exit door and away from the first exit door, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that Gupta et al's controller 140 should obviously update the floor light arrows 134a in the different direction, i.e., away from the first exit door which is farther away for a portion of the passengers and toward the newly opened second exit door because the newly opened second opened door is obviously closer to such passengers).
As to claim 2, the claimed second interior emergency light can be read on any second interior emergency light other than the one indicated above in the rejection of claim 1 (note that Gupta et al shows several different interior emergency lights, wherein such second emergency light is adjacent a second exit door, and activating this second interior emergency light would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Gupta et al, as long as the second exit door is functioning normally (as determined by Gupta et al's different sensors), and finally note that controller 140 will inherently or obviously activate a first set of floor lights 134a to direct passengers to the first exit door, and also inherently or obviously activate a second set of floor lights 134a to direct the passengers to the second exit door, again as long as both exit doors are functioning properly, i.e., with no problems detected by the various sensors disclosed by Gupta et al.
As to claim 3, the claimed second interior emergency light can again be read on any second interior emergency light other than the one indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, i.e., any of the emergency lights illustrated in figure 4, 5 or 6 of Gupta et al, and Gupta et al's controller 140 will inherently or obviously activate such second interior emergency light in response to the emergency.
As to claim 4, the claimed sensor can be read on any of Gupta et al's different sensors, i.e., the sensor for detecting slide deployment, the sensor for detecting temperature (e.g., a fire), and the various object sensors referred to throughout this reference (note that all of the sensors are inherently or obviously coupled to the exit doors 104 and will be in communication with controller 140, such a sensor inherently being configured to provide an indication of the status of the exit door it is coupled to, and finally note that controller 140 of Gupta et al will inherently receive a status signal from such a sensor and activate the appropriate floor lights 134a in order to indicate the direction to the nearest functioning exit door in response to the status output of the sensor.
As to claim 5, note that Gupta et al's controller 140 will inherently or obviously activate each of the floor lights 134a to indicate the second direction in response to an updated status indicating that the exit door is non-functional, i.e., as noted above, if one of the various sensors disclosed by this reference detects a problem with the exit door, such will be indicated to controller 140, and this controller will obviously activate the appropriate floor lights 134a so as to direct the passengers away from any non-functional exit door and toward any functional exit door.
As to claim 6, the claimed second sensor can be read on Gupta et al's slide sensor (when the above-noted "sensor" recited in claim 4 is being read on either Gupta et al’s temperature sensor or object sensor), note that such a second sensor will inherently or obviously be operatively coupled to the emergency slide and will be in communication with controller 140, and it will provide an indication of the deployed status of the emergency slide, i.e., either deployed or stowed, and finally note that controller 140 in Gupta et al will inherently or obviously receive the deployed status from such a second sensor (slide sensor) and the controller 140 will inherently or obviously activate floor lights 134a to indicate the direction for the passengers to go in order to get to the exit door with the deployed slide.
As to claim 7, obviously in Gupta et al's emergency lighting system controller 140 will output control signals to the floor lights 134a to direct the passengers towards an exit door with a deployed slide or, alternatively, direct the passengers away from and exit door with a stowed slide.
As to claim 8, the claimed first exit door is any first one of Gupta et al's exit doors, the claimed first emergency light and the plurality of floor lights are as indicated above, the claimed processor and memory with instructions are inherent within controller 140, and the limitations recited on the last six lines of this claim are rejected for the reasons noted above.
As to claim 9, the claimed second exit door is any second one of Gupta et al's exit doors, the plurality of floor lights 134a inherently extend from the first exit door to the second exit door, as shown in figure 4 of this reference, the claimed second emergency light is any second emergency light in this reference, and the limitations set forth on the last six lines of this claim are rejected as indicated above.
As to claim 10, note that Gupta et al's processor within controller 140 should obviously deactivate the claimed first emergency light if one of the exit doors adjacent thereto is detected as being non-functional, and such processor should also obviously activate the appropriate floor lights 134a directing the passengers toward whichever exit door is functioning properly.
As to claim 11, the claimed first sensor can again be read on any of Gupta et al's different sensors, note that it will inherently be coupled to the first exit door and to the processor within controller 140, and it will also inherently provide a status of the first exit door, i.e., whether the first exit door is functioning properly or if there is a problem therewith, and then obviously controller 140 should deactivate the claimed first emergency light so that it no longer directs the passengers to the first exit door when such exit door is non-functional.
As to claim 12, the claimed emergency slide disposed adjacent the first exit door is inherent in Gupta et al, the claimed second sensor is the inherent sensor in this reference which is coupled to the emergency slide, note that such second sensor is inherently operatively coupled to the processor within controller 140, and it inherently provides a deployed status of the emergency slide, and finally note that the instructions being executed by controller 140 will inherently cause the processor to receive the deployed status output from the second sensor, and then obviously cause the first emergency light to be deactivated if the emergency slide is detected as being undeployed, i.e., stowed.
As to claim 13, the above-noted instructions executed by Gupta et al's processor within controller 140 will inherently cause the processor to monitor the status received from the claimed first sensor, i.e., any of the sensors disclosed in this reference other than the slide sensor, monitor the deployed status received from the second sensor (slide sensor), and then obviously deactivate the claimed first emergency light in response to either a change in status received from the first sensor or in response to the deployed status received from the second sensor, i.e., again one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the first emergency light in Gupta et al should be turned off if there is a problem with the exit door that it is adjacent to or pointing towards.
As to claim 14, the claimed second emergency light is shown as light 132 in figure 3 of Gupta et al (and note what is indicated in paragraph [0030] of this reference), note that such second emergency light is operatively coupled to the processor within controller 140, and it includes a first arrow indicating the first direction to the first exit door, and finally note that the instructions executed by the processor within controller 140 will inherently or obviously activate second emergency light 132 including the first arrow in response to the emergency.
As to claim 15, the claimed processor is again Gupta et al's processor within controller 140, note that the processor activates a first emergency light adjacent to a first exit door, as noted above, in response to the indication of the emergency, again note that the processor activates the floor lights 134a to indicate a direction towards the first exit door, as long as it is functioning properly, and the processor can obviously activate the floor lights 134a sequentially to indicate the first direction, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, the claimed monitoring of the plurality of sensors during the emergency is inherent in controller 140, the claimed updating of the first emergency light in response to the emergency would have been obvious as noted above, i.e., if the exit door adjacent to the first emergency light is non-functional for any reason, such first emergency light should be deactivated, whereas on the other hand if the exit door adjacent to the first emergency light is functioning properly, such first emergency light should be activated, and the limitation on the last three lines of claim 15 would have been obvious for the same reasons noted above.
As to claim 16, the claimed second emergency light adjacent to a second exit door is again any second emergency light in Gupta et al, i.e., as long as Gupta et al has a pair of emergency lights adjacent to respective exit doors, one of them will be a first emergency light and the other will be a second emergency light, the processor within controller 140 activating first and second subsets of the floor lights 134a will be the inherent or obvious function of controller 140 when both of the first and second exit doors are functioning properly.
As to claim 17, the claimed second emergency light can be read on Gupta et al's emergency light 132 shown in figure 3 or, alternatively, the claimed second emergency light can be read on seat guidance arrow lights 170, 172 or 136 shown in figure 5 of this reference.
As to claim 18, the limitations of this claim also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., if the above-noted first emergency light has been activated because the corresponding exit door is functioning properly, and then controller 140 receives a status output from a corresponding sensor which indicates that such exit door is no longer functioning properly, the processor within controller 140 should obviously turn off such first emergency light, and finally note that the processor within controller 140 should obviously update the arrows of floor lights 134a so as to direct the passengers away from the non-functioning exit door.
As to claim 19, the limitations of this claim also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., if the claimed first emergency light is turned on and then controller 140 receives an updated status from a slide sensor, the controller 140 should obviously deactivate, i.e., turn off, the first emergency light in response to an updated status, i.e., a status signal indicating that the emergency slide is not deployed properly, and then the processor within controller 140 should obviously direct the passengers away from the exit door with the improperly deployed emergency slide and toward an exit door which is functioning properly.
As to claim 20, the limitations of this claim also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., if the first emergency light is in the turned off state, and the processor within controller 140 receives an updated status from the above-noted slide sensor indicating that such emergency slide is now properly deployed, the processor within controller 140 should obviously turn the first emergency light back on and activate the floor lights 134a so as to direct the passengers to the first exit door which now has a properly deployed emergency slide.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previous rejection of claims 8-20 was incomplete because the examiner did not address all of the limitations of these claims. This argument is not persuasive because the examiner indicated in the previous office action that all of the functional limitations/method steps recited in claims 8-20 were deemed to be inherent in Gupta et al, note what was indicated in the paragraph bridging pages 6-7 of the previous office action. Therefore, the limitations of "receiving, by the processor, a second deployed status from the second sensor, the second deployed status being received after the deployed status; activating, by the processor, the first emergency light in response to the second deployed status being deployed; and activating, by the processor, the plurality of floor lights to indicate the first direction to the first exit door in response to the second deployed status being deployed, as dependent from the limitations receiving, by the processor, a deployed status from a second sensor coupled to an emergency slide, the emergency slide being adjacent the first exit door; deactivating, by the processor, the first emergency light in response to the deployed status being stowed; and activating, by the processor, the plurality of floor lights to indicate a second direction to a second exit door in response to the deployed status being stowed" were in fact considered and addressed by the examiner in the previous office action and the previous rejection was therefore complete.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 2a) of Fleischmann et al shows another example of an emergency light arrow mounted on the ceiling of a passenger aircraft.
Action is Final
6. 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 March 11, 2026