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 .
Response to Pre-amendments
The present office action is made in response to the pre-amendments filed by applicant on 03/13/2024 and 07/01/2024.
2a) In the pre-amendment of 03/13/2024, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification. Regarding the claims, applicant has renumbered claims numbers #3-6 appeared after claim No #11 in the list of claims as claims 12-15; and
2b) In the pre-amendment of 07/01/2024, applicant has made change(s) to the section of “CROSS-REFERENCE(S) TO RELATED APPLICATION” in page 1 of the specification. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the claims.
Both pre-amendments filed on 03/13/024 and 07/01/2024 have been entered.
Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are claims 1-15 which claims are examined in the present office action.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirty five sheets of figures 1A-1B, 2A-2E, 3A-3D, 4-5, 6A-6I, 7A-7D, 8A-8B, 9A-9B, 10A-10D and 11A-11B were received on 03/13/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reason(s).
Figures 1A-1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See specification in pages 1-2 and 7. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract provided in the front page/sheet of reference WO 2023/044349 A9 is used as an abstract of the present US application.
The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 07/01/2024 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The Summary is objected to because it contains numerous details of the invention. Applicant needs to provide a brief technical description of the invention in the Summary and moves other detailed description of the invention to the section of “DETAILED DECSCRIPTION”. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a) Page 11: on line 27, what does applicant mean by “zone (62) (are) are shown”? Should the terms be changed to –zone (62) (area) are shown--? b) Page 11: on lines 19 and 32, the reference “60” is used to refer to two different components, i.e., a “module” as shown on line 19 and an “output” as shown on line 32; c) Page 12: on line 1, the terms “to from” in the phrase thereof “The processing module 70 is configured to receive signals to from the sensor” should be changed to --from--; d) Page 14: on line 9, “62A, 62B, and 62C, 62D, and 62E” should be changed to --62A, 62B, 62C, 62D, and 62E--. There are still some grammatical and idiomatic errors in the specification. Applicant should carefully proofread the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
a) In each of claims 3-4: on line 2 of each claim, “is programmed return illumination” should be changed to --is programmed to return illumination--, see the use of similar claimed language in each of claims 1, 2, 5, …; and
b) In claim 9: the phrase thereof “each illumination module … illumination channels” (lines 2-4) has a grammatical error. Should “to reduce illumination at least one of the illumination channels” (lines 3-4) be changed to --to reduce illumination in at least one of the illumination channels--? See the use of similar language in claims 2-4 and 6-7.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the objected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Interpretation
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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:
a) “an illumination module”, “an illumination channel”, “a sensor module” and “a processing module” as recited in claim 1;
b) “one additional sensor module” as recited in claim 6;
c) “one additional illumination module” as recited in claim 9;
d) “a system controller” as recited in claim 12; and
e) “a network” as recited in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a1) the feature thereof “the processing module … within the sensor zone” (lines 5-6) makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear how many “illumination channel(s)” being illuminated by the illumination module. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claim on line 2 which recites “an illumination module is configured to illuminate an illumination channel”. Should “an illumination channel” (lines 5-6) be changed to --the illumination channel--? and
a2) The claim is indefinite due to the use of term “when” in the mentioned feature. Applicant should note that the term "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Should the term “when” (line 6) be changed to --with-- or other technical term(s) to make the claim comply with the rule?
b) Each of claims 2 and 4-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the similar reason as set forth in element a2) above.
c) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
c1) the similar reason as set forth in element a2) above; and
c2) each of the features thereof “the one of the sensor modules” (line 4) and “the threshold duration” (line 5) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
d) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
18. Claims 1, 6 and 13, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cannon et al (US Publication Mo. 2014/0320023, submitted by applicant).
Cannon et al discloses a lighting system and a method for providing active glare control.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 13, the lighting system as described in paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0040]-[0051] and shown in figs. 1 and 7-8 comprises a plurality of light fixtures (100) wherein each light fixtures comprises the following structure:
a1) an illumination module (110) configured to illuminate an illumination channel, see the area defined/covered by double arrow (132), see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1;
a2) a sensor module (120) configured to sense movement(s) within a sensor zone, see the area defined/covered by double arrow (130), see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1; and
a3) a processing module, i.e., a system controller, in operative communication with the illumination module (110) and the sensor module (120) wherein the processing module is programmed to reduce illumination in the illumination channel in case that the sensor module senses movement(s) of a person or a vehicle driven by a person or an object mounted on the vehicle driven by a person within the sensor zone, see paragraphs [0026], [0041] and [0046] and figs. 1 and 8B.
b) Regarding present claim 6, the lighting system as described in paragraphs [0048]-[0051] comprises a plurality of lighting fixtures. Each has an illumination module and a sensor module wherein each sensor module has its own sensor zone, and the processing module is operative to reduce illumination in the correspond sensor zone when any sensor module senses movement(s) of a vehicle/person present within that sensor zone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. Claims 2-5 and 7-12, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cannon et al in view of Ekkizogloy et al (CN reference No. CN 107458300 A).
a) Regarding present claims 2-5 and 7-9, in the lighting system as described in paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0040]-[0051] and shown in figs. 1 and 7-8, while Cannon et al discloses that the processing module is in operative communication with light fixtures each has an illumination module and a sensor module to reduce the illumination in case that the sensor module senses movement(s) of a user in a sensor zone; however, Cannon et al does not positively disclose that the processing module is programmed to reduce illumination in case that the sensor module senses that the person/vehicle/object is moving toward the sensor module at a speed faster than a threshold speed for a duration longer than a threshold duration as recited in the claims.
However, a lighting system having a plurality of light modules, sensor modules and a light control which controls the illumination from the illumination modules based on the outputs of the sensor modules with the claimed features is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the lighting system provided by Ekkizogloy et al. In particular, Ekkizogloy et al discloses a lighting system having a plurality of lighting modules (206), sensor modules (208), and a light control having processor (250) being programmed to control the illumination of lighting modules (206) based on outputs from the sensor modules (208), see English machine Translation (attached with the present office action), pages 3-5 and figs. 1-3. In particular, in page 4, the sensor (208) senses the speed of the approached object (140) and outputs the signals to the control (250) to reduce the intensity of illumination modules (206). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lighting system provided by Cannon et al by using the sensor modules to sense the speed of the approached person/vehicle/object as suggested by Ekkizogloy et al in their lighting system for controlling the illumination of the illumination modules to reduce/prevent glare to a user/observer.
It is also noted that the sensor modules (208) as taught by Ekkizogloy et al continuously sensing/detecting the presence and the movement(s) of the approached object and outputs sensed/detected signals to the processing module (250) to adjust the intensity level of illumination modules (206) which includes a return to the previous illumination level when there is not any object in the sensing range or there is not any change in position/speed of the approached object after a predetermined amount of time.
b) Regarding present claim 10, the lighting system provided by Cannon et al comprises a plurality of light fixtures wherein each light fixture has its own illumination module and sensor module.
c) Regarding present claim 11, the lighting system as described by Cannon et al in paragraphs [0054]-[0055] and fig. 10 discloses that lighting system (1000) includes a housing (1030) supporting a plurality of light fixtures (1010A-1010C) and electronics (1070) process information and adjust power to each illumination modules locally (paragraph [0055] and fig. 10).
d) Regarding present claim 12, the combined product as provided by Cannon et al and Ekkizogloy et al discloses a system controller in operative communication with each of the processing modules which each is in turn in operative communication with the illumination module and the sensor module of each light fixture wherein the system controller is programmed to control at least one of the processing modules in response to signals received by another of the processing modules, see Cannon et al in paragraphs [0046]-[0050].
21. Claims 14-15, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cannon et al in view of Schofield et al (US Publication No. 2008/0054161, submitted by applicant).
a) Regarding present claim 14, while Cannon et al does not positively disclose that the lighting system is mounted on a vehicle; however, Schofield et al, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a lighting system having illumination module(s), sensor module(s) and a processing module and teach that the lighting system is mounted to a vehicle, see paragraph [0025], i.e., the lighting system is fixedly mounted to a housing (28) via bracket 934) to a vehicle windshield (32).
Regarding present claim 15, Schofield et al also discloses there are many glare control systems to be installed with the vehicle for the purpose of controlling glare(s) to the operator of the vehicle, see paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lighting system having glare reduction system as provided by Cannon et al in a vehicle having plural of glaring reduction systems as suggested by Schofield et al for the purpose of controlling glare problems caused by lights from vehicle’s headlamps of oncoming vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
23. The US Patent Nos. 8,981,671 and 11,337,288 are cited as of interest in that each discloses a glare reductive system having illumination module(s), sensor module(s) and at least a control module in operative communication with the illumination module(s) and sensor module(s) to control the light intensity of the illumination module(s).
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights