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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At present, the prior art to Grote, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,626 B2), Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2), and Garcia (GB 2548946 A) remains applicable to the scope of the claims as stated by the Applicant and as broadly interpreted by the Examiner [MPEP 2111], which is elucidated and expounded in the obvious rejection below.
Applicant’s argument as follows is not found persuasive: “As an initial matter, the LEDs are snap mounted to an extrusion, and Grote lacks any disclosure which teaches [or] suggests that these LEDs may slide along the bracket, specifically noting that they are shoe connectors ‘frictionally secure the brackets.’ As explained by Grote, this allows ‘different LEDs and optical elements [to] be used to change the pattern of the light emitted without changing the brackets 116 or the shoes 132.’ Grote, Col. 5, lines 54-57 (emphasis added).” It should be noted that the claim language does not specifically say “slide” but can “move along” the one or more grooves. However, Grote remains commensurate in teaching the brackets and/or shoes (116, 132) being moveable/slidable within the groove [note Figures 1-2]. To give fuller context, Grote specifically teaches, “A multitude of lighting configurations are possible as a result of the structural configuration of the base 102, the brackets 116 and the shoes 132. Since there are no fixed areas where hardware must be located to secure light heads to the base, different light patterns may be achieved using the same mounting apparatus and without perforating the base 102 for multiple mounting hardware configurations. Different LEDs and optical elements may also be used to change the pattern of the light emitted without changing the brackets 116 or the shoes 132” [note Column 5, Lines 48-57]. Thus, it remains clear that Grote teaches the plurality of light modules are configured to attach and move along the one or more grooves.
In response to Applicant’s argument, “Further, the LEDs in Grote lack a housing in entirety, instead opting for a main body portion which seals the entire lighting system. This maintains ‘the original shape of the warning light’ when ‘vehicles travel at high speeds.’ This comports with the purpose of Grote to provide ‘compact, low profile, self-contained warning light assemblies’ with ‘weather-resistant seal[s],’” Grote remains commensurate in teaching each light module (116, 121, 123, 125, 132) of the plurality of light modules being enclosed by a housing [e.g., (182, 192)].
All other arguments hinge on the above and have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,626 B2) in view of Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Grote discloses a lighting system [Figures 1-14] including:
An exoskeleton [e.g., (102, 156)] including at least one extrusion [note Figures 1-2], the at least one extrusion comprising one or more grooves [note Figures 1-2];
A plurality of light modules (116, 121, 123, 125, 132) coupled to the exoskeleton, wherein a connector (132) of each light module of the plurality of light modules is configured to attach and move along the one or more grooves of the at least one extrusion [note Figures 1-4];
A first corner light module [e.g., Figure 4: top left side (121, 123, 125, 132)], configured to couple to the exoskeleton; and
A second corner light module [e.g., Figure 4: bottom left side (121, 123, 125, 132)] configured to couple to the exoskeleton, wherein when the first corner light module and the second corner light module are coupled to the exoskeleton, an opening is formed [note Figures 1-14],
Wherein each light module of the plurality of light modules can be independently replaced without needing to replace the lighting system [Column 5, Lines 48-57], and wherein each light module of the plurality of light modules is enclosed by a housing [e.g., (182, 192)].
In addition, Grote discloses, “a plurality of control circuit for selectively energizing the LED warning light assemblies” [end of Claim 1], but does not specifically teach each light module of the plurality of light modules include a separate controller configured to independently control the respective light module, wherein each light modules is configured to operate independently.
Dowling discloses, “Each lighting device 1600 could also have an addressable controller, so that each one of a plurality of lighting devices 1600 may be individually accessed by the control unit 1618, through any suitable wired or wireless network” [Column 15, Lines 35-40].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote, such that each light module of the plurality of light modules include a separate controller configured to independently control the respective light module, wherein each light modules is configured to operate individually, as taught in principle by Dowling, in order to provide greater illumination control/remote access as desired.
With regards to Claim 13, Grote discloses the lighting system further comprises one or more electrical modules (162) configured to couple to the exoskeleton in the opening.
With regards to Claim 14, Grote discloses the one or more electrical modules comprises one or more optical sensors, one or more humidity sensors a network interface, components capable of facilitating a local area network (LAN), Bluetooth, controller area network (CAN), Wi-Fi, or other wireless connection, a controller, a battery, one or more wires, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), radar, one or more cameras, one or more distance sensors, or combinations thereof [note Figures 1-14].
Claims 3-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,626 B2) in view of Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia (GB 2548946 A).
With regard to Claims 3-4, Grote in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above, but does not specifically teach at least one light module of the plurality of light modules includes a common optical element configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, and white light; or the plurality of light modules being configured to emit a flash pattern.
Garcia discloses the plurality of light modules (2) being configured to be controlled independent of another light module of the plurality of light modules [Claim 6]; at least one light module of the plurality of light modules includes a common optical element [note cover of (2)] configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, and white light [Page 5, Lines 20-28]; and the plurality of light modules (2) being configured to emit a flash pattern [Page 4, Lines 34-35].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote in view of Dowling to incorporate the plurality of light modules being configured to be controlled independent of another light module of the plurality of light modules; at least one light module of the plurality of light modules includes a common optical element configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, and white light; or the plurality of light modules being configured to emit a flash pattern, as taught in principle by Garcia, in order to provide greater control of the illumination as desired (e.g., intensity, color, flashing).
With regard to Claims 5-11, Grote discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach:
(Claim 5) each light module of the plurality of light modules includes two or more light elements;
(Claim 6) each light element of the two or more light elements including: a first primary warning light; and a second warning light;
(Claim 7) the secondary warning light element being configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, white light, infrared light, or a combination thereof;
(Claim 8) the two or more lighting elements including: a first primary warning light; a secondary primary warning; and a secondary warning light;
(Claim 9) the first primary warning light and the second primary warning light are configured to emit light independently;
(Claim 10) the first primary warning light, the second primary warning light, the secondary warning light, or a combination thereof are configured to emit a flash pattern; and/or
(Claim 11) the second warning light is disposed between the first primary warning light element and the second primary warning light element.
With regards to Claim 5, Garcia discloses each light module (2) of the plurality of light modules includes two or more light elements [Page 4, Lines 15-31].
With regards to Claim 6, Garcia discloses each light element of the two or more light elements [e.g., (3-5)] including: a first primary warning light [e.g., Figure 2: left (4)]; and a second warning light [e.g., Figure 2: right (4-5)] [Page 4, Line 19 – Page 5, Line 10].
With regards to Claim 7, Garcia discloses the secondary warning light element being configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, white light, infrared light, or a combination thereof [Page 4, Line 19 – Page 5, Line 10].
With regards to Claim 8, Garcia discloses the two or more lighting elements (2) including: a first primary warning light [e.g., Figure 3: left (4)]; a secondary primary warning [e.g., Figure 3: (5)]; and a secondary warning light [e.g., Figure 3: right (4)].
With regards to Claim 9, Garcia discloses the first primary warning light and the second primary warning light are configured to emit light independently [Page 4, Line 19 – Page 5, Line 10].
With regards to Claim 10, Garcia discloses the first primary warning light, the second primary warning light, the secondary warning light, or a combination thereof are configured to emit a flash pattern [Page 4, Line 19 – Page 5, Line 10].
With regards to Claim 11, Garcia discloses the second warning light [e.g., Figure 3: right (4)] is disposed between the first primary warning light element [e.g., Figure 3: left (4)] and the second primary warning light element [e.g., Figure 3: (5)].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote in view of Dowling to have:
(Claim 5) each light module of the plurality of light modules includes two or more light elements;
(Claim 6) each light element of the two or more light elements including: a first primary warning light; and a second warning light;
(Claim 7) the secondary warning light element being configured to emit red, green, blue, amber, white light, infrared light, or a combination thereof;
(Claim 8) the two or more lighting elements including: a first primary warning light; a secondary primary warning; and a secondary warning light;
(Claim 9) the first primary warning light and the second primary warning light are configured to emit light independently;
(Claim 10) the first primary warning light, the second primary warning light, the secondary warning light, or a combination thereof are configured to emit a flash pattern; and/or
(Claim 11) the second warning light is disposed between the first primary warning light element and the second primary warning light element.
All of the above are taught above in principle by Garcia. Such an obvious modification of various lighting elements/lights and colors provide greater control over the illumination as desired.
With regards to Claim 12, Grote in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the lighting system further includes one or more attachment feet configured to be coupled to the exoskeleton in the opening, wherein the one or more attachment feet are configured to attach the lighting system to a vehicle.
Garcia teaches the lighting system further includes one or more attachment feet [e.g., (9)] configured to be coupled to the exoskeleton in the opening, wherein the one or more attachment feet are configured to attach the lighting system to a vehicle [note Figures 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote in view of Dowling to have incorporated one or more attachment feet configured to be coupled to the exoskeleton in the opening, wherein the one or more attachment feet are configured to attach the lighting system to a vehicle, as taught in principle by Garcia, so as to provide elevation, promote heat transfer, and/or securing means as desired for the lighting system to a vehicle.
With regards to Claim 16, Grote in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach one or more additional lights, wherein the one or more additional lights are remote from the exoskeleton, and wherein the one or more additional lights are controlled by the lighting system.
Garcia discloses the lighting system further including one or more additional lights [e.g., (8)], wherein the one or more additional lights are remote from the exoskeleton, and wherein the one or more additional lights are controlled by the lighting system [note Figure 3].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote in view of Dowling to have incorporated one or more additional lights, wherein the one or more additional lights are remote from the exoskeleton, and wherein the one or more additional lights are controlled by the lighting system, as taught in principle by Garcia, in order to provide greater control over the illumination as desired by providing an addition light that is remote from the exoskeleton.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grote, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,626 B2) in view of Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Pederson et al. (U.S. Patent 7,468,677 B2).
With regards to Claim 15, Grote in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the one or more optical sensors are configured to measure ambient light; and switch the lighting system to night mode when the ambient light falls below a predetermined threshold.
Pederson discloses a lighting system [Figures 1-18] and teaches one or more optical sensors configured to measure ambient light and switch the lighting system to night mode when the ambient light falls below a predetermined threshold [Column 12, Lines 58-64].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Grote in view of Dowling to have incorporated one or more optical sensors to measure ambient light and switch the lighting system to night mode when the ambient light falls below a predetermined threshold, as taught in principle by Pederson, in order to provide an energy efficient lighting system based on environmental conditions. Such an obvious modification is well-known and established in the art.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (GB 2548946 A) in view of Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2).
With regards to Claim 17, Garcia a lighting system [Figures 1-3] including:
A lightbar including at least one light module [e.g., (2, 8)], wherein each light module of the plurality of light modules can be independently replaced without needing to replace the lighting system, and wherein each light module of the plurality of light modules is enclosed by a housing [note Figure 3], and one or more additional lights [e.g., (8) and/or other (2)] selected from lights of a vehicle, lights separate from the lighting system, or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more additional lights are controlled by the lighting system [Page 5, Line 20 – Page 6, Line 1], the lighting system configured to:
Emit a flash pattern with two or more lighting elements [(4-5), whereby each light element includes one or more LED diodes (Page 4, Lines 22-23)] on each of the at least one light module [note Figure 3 shows two (4) and one (5), whereby Garcia discloses, “For example, the electronic controller may allow for generating flashes of sweeping light” (Page 4, Lines 34-35); also, note that Garcia further elaborates said flashing with switching on/off of the light sources (Page 5, Lines 7-10)]; and
Operate a command mode, wherein the command mode includes emitting steady green light from the at least one light module [Claims 2 and 9 teach the LED diodes that are “multi-colour LED with RGB technology” with is well-known to include green illumination/diodes; in addition, Garcia discloses, “For example, the infrared light may be flickery and the visible light may remain fixed” (Page 5, Lines 9-10)],
When in command mode, emit a steady green light from the one or more additional lights [Page 5, Line 20 – Page 6, Line 1 – as broadly interpreted where steady can mean an image].
Garcia does not specifically teach each light module of the plurality of light modules include a separate controller configured to independently control the respective light module, wherein each light modules is configured to operate independently.
Dowling discloses, “Each lighting device 1600 could also have an addressable controller, so that each one of a plurality of lighting devices 1600 may be individually accessed by the control unit 1618, through any suitable wired or wireless network” [Column 15, Lines 35-40].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Garcia, such that each light module of the plurality of light modules include a separate controller configured to independently control the respective light module, wherein each light modules is configured to operate individually, as taught in principle by Dowling, in order to provide greater illumination control/remote access as desired.
With regards to Claim 19, Garcia in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Garcia teaches each light module of the at least one light module includes: two or more light elements [e.g., (3-5)], wherein each light element of the two or more light elements [e.g., (3-5)] including: a first primary warning light [e.g., Figure 3: left (4)]; a secondary primary warning [e.g., Figure 3: (5)]; and a secondary warning light [e.g., Figure 3: right (4)].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (GB 2548946 A) in view of Dowling et al. (U.S. Patent 7,064,498 B2) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Grote, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,626 B2).
With regards to Claim 18, Garcia in view of Dowling discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Garcia discloses the light bar further including an exoskeleton [e.g., (9) and/or middle section within (2)]; wherein the at least one light module is coupled to the exoskeleton [note Figures 1-3]; a first corner light module [e.g., Figure 2: left side (2)], configured to couple to the exoskeleton; and a second corner light module [e.g., Figure 2: right side (2)] configured to couple to the exoskeleton, wherein when the first corner light module and the second corner light module are coupled to the exoskeleton, an opening is formed [note Figures 1-3], but does not specifically teach the exoskeleton comprising at least one extrusion, wherein the at least one extrusion comprising a first section, a second section disposed perpendicular to the first section, and one or more grooves; wherein the at least one light module is coupled to the exoskeleton, wherein a connector of the at least one light module is configured to attach and move along the one or more grooves of the at least one extrusion.
Grote teaches an exoskeleton [e.g., (102, 156)] including at least one extrusion [note Figures 1-2], the at least one extrusion comprising a first section, a second section disposed perpendicular to the first section, and one or more grooves [note Figures 1-2]; wherein at least one light module (121, 123, 125, 132) is coupled to the exoskeleton, wherein a connector (132) of the at least one light module is configured to attach and move along the one or more grooves of the at least one extrusion [note Figures 1-4].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting system of Garcia in view of Dowling, specifically the exoskeleton to have incorporated the at least one extrusion, wherein the at least one extrusion comprising a first section, a second section disposed perpendicular to the first section, and one or more grooves; wherein the at least one light module is coupled to the exoskeleton, wherein a connector of the at least one light module is configured to attach and move along the one or more grooves of the at least one extrusion, as taught in principle by Grote, in order to provide/facilitate flexibility in attaching/removing/repairing the light modules as desired to the exoskeleton.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights