DETAILED ACTION
This is the second office action for US Application 18/627,808 for a Light Fixture Control Module.
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 with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the action does not specify how the species are independent and/or distinct, and that the election of species fails to establish a prima facie case for requiring restriction because the reasons and/or examples provided to support the conclusions are inadequate. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the previous action, the reason provided is that a search of the different species would require different text search terms. Also, the previous action notes that the species are independent or distinct because each species shows a distinct mounting means.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected spcies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1 December 2025.
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 16 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 16 recites the limitation "the signal wire" in line 2. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,107,480 to Ladewig et al. in view of US 2021/0185786 to Bennette. Regarding claim 1, Ladewig et al. discloses a light fixture control module comprising a base (108) including an inner end and an outer end. The inner end is mounted to a vertical mounting base (106) of a light fixture and includes a wire channel (see col. 4, lines 27-37… the inner chamber of 106 houses wires). There is a bracket (104) coupled to the outer end of the base, the bracket including a shell having an inner chamber (313… see figure 3). There is also a sensor (mounted to the shell of the bracket, the sensor having a sensor element (312).
Ladewig et al. does not disclose the sensor element as having a sensor wire transmitting a control signal from the sensor element, the sensor wire routed through the inner chamber of the shell to the wire channel of the base, and configured to be routed away from the base to control operation of the light element of the light fixture. Bennette provides a teaching for connecting a sensor (34) with a light element (18) via a sensor wire (24… see paragraph 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have connected the sensor and light fixture of Ladewig et al. via a wire as taught by Bennette. The sensor wire would inherently be routed through the inner chamber of the shell to the wire channel of the base, and would be routed away from the base (the wire would extend away from 108 to 102).
Regarding claim 5, the bracket is pivotably coupled to the base (see column 8, lines 60-62… the bracket 104 rotates relative to the base 108). Regarding claim 8, there are fasteners (306… see column 6, lines 59-63) configured to secure the base to the vertical mounting base. Regarding claim 14, the bracket (104) includes a mounting hub (314), the sensor (312) coupled to the mounting hub (see col. 9, lines 42-44). Regarding claim 17, there is a sensor seal (310) between the sensor and the bracket. Regarding claim 18, there is a base seal (613) between the base and the bracket (see column 8, lines 49-57).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,107,480 to Ladewig et al. in view of US 2021/0185786 to Bennette, and in further view of US 2008/0084656 to Sloan et al. Ladewig et al. in view of Bennette does not disclose the base as including a grommet extending from the inner end with the wire channel passing through the grommet. Sloan et al. provides a teaching for utilizing a grommet (30) around wires (28) to provide a seal (see paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a grommet around the wire of Ladewig et al. in view of Bennette to provide a seal as taught by Sloan et al. The grommet around the wire would inherently have a wire channel for the wire.
Ladewig et al. in view of Bennette, and in further view of Sloan et al. does not specifically disclose the location of the grommet. However, the specific location of the grommet is a matter of design preference, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know to place the grommet between the base and the vertical mounting base to provide a seal for the wire between the structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15, 16 and 19-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to Ledewig et al. cited above does not disclose the limitations of the allowed claims and there is no teaching in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features with those taught by Ledewig et al.
Claims 25-28 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art cited above to Ledewig et al. discloses some of the features of claim 25 and 28, but does not disclose a second sensor mounted to a second mounting surface of the shell, or a bracket including a securing member configured to be coupled to the base at different mounting positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0082242 to McDonald
US 2016/0109079 to McKinley
US 2017/0307192 to LaFemina
US 2015/0354766 to Townsend, Jr.
US 2014/0328070 to Oquendo
US 2210487 to Kimmich
The above prior art discloses various light fixtures or sensor mounts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632