DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 01/20/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claim 11 is canceled;
Claim 1 is currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are pending;
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 .
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“means (22) for communication to a central device (3)” in claim 1
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2014/0333206A1 hereinafter “Simons” in view of US2020/0288558A1 hereinafter “Anderson” in view of US2016/0345414A1 hereinafter “Nolan”
Regarding claim 1, Simons discloses a method (1) of commissioning a plurality of luminaires (2) (¶1L4-5: commissioning networked lighting fixture), a respective luminaire (2) of the plurality of luminaires (2) (¶44L2-3: a plurality of luminaires [140-149]) comprising
a sound sensor (21) (¶51L1-2: a microphone in each luminaire [140-149] may detect the commission sound), and
means (22) for communication (¶45L1-3: the plurality of luminaires [140-149], the controller and the lighting control system [160] are connected by a data network) to a central device (3) (¶44L3-4: a lighting control system (LCS) [160]);
the method (1) comprising
predefining (11) a commissioning sequence (41) of the plurality of luminaires (2) (¶50L1-7: the commissioner travels throughs the first room [110] according to a prescribed commission path [300]) in a building layout plan (4) (¶47L1-7: the building plan shown in Fig.1);
modulating (12) a sound input of the sound sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) in accordance with the predefined commissioning sequence (41) (¶54L1-13: the commissioner walk along the commission path; each step the commissioner takes along the path generates a footstep sound; the sound of footsteps are identified by the local luminaire);
informing (13) the central device (3) of the light input modulation of the respective luminaire (2) using a network address of the respective luminaire (2) (¶6L1-13: each fixture have a network address associated with it) if an assessment as to an intensity of the sound input of the sound sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) crosses a predefined threshold (¶52L1-11: each luminaire may be configured with a sound threshold; ¶53L1-9: detection of each commissioning sound by each luminaire cause the luminaire to send a signal over the data network); and
associating (14) the network address and the respective luminaire (2) in the building layout plan (4) in accordance with the predefined commissioning sequence (41). (¶54L1-13: the location of each luminaire may be matched to a corresponding luminaire according to the building plan; enabling the commissioned luminaire to be controlled via the data network)
Simons does not explicitly disclose:
a light sensor
modulating (12) a sound input of the sound sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2)
commission the device if an assessment as to an intensity of the light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) crosses a predefined threshold
Anderson discloses a method to commission a load control system wherein a plurality of control device is commissioned and each control device comprises:
a light sensor (¶12L2-6: lighting control device ach include a visible light sensor)
modulating (12) a light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) (¶12L6-9: the lighting control device may receive an optical signal from the mobile device (e.g. from an optical transmitter)
commission the device if an assessment as to an intensity of the light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) crosses a predefined threshold (¶12L17-20: the lighting control device that is reeving the optical signal at the highest normalized signal strength may be claimed and/or associated)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system and commissioning method disclosed by Simons by replacing the sound sensor and associated function with the light sensor and associated function as disclosed by Anderson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system and commission method to still function in a noisy and loud environment such as a construction site, where background noise makes it difficult for the sound sensor to function properly.
Simons in view of Anderson hereinafter “Simons/Anderson” does not expclitly disclose:
predefining (11) the commissioning sequence (41) comprising automatically predefining (111) the commissioning sequence (41) in accordance with obstructions (44) in the building layout plan (4).
Nolan discloses a lighting system commission method wherein the commission database include layout of the space or obstacles in the space for use in assessing positional demarcations (¶51L1-16)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have the commission database disclosed by Nolan to be part of building plan for Simons for the commissioner to determine the path to take for commission.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to determine the most efficient path for commissioning all the devices.
Regarding claim 2, Simons/Anderson in view of Nolan hereinafter “Simons/Anderson/Nolan” discloses in Anderson the method (1) of claim 1,
the assessment relating to the intensity as such (¶12L9-12: the lighting control device measure the signal strength of the optical signal), and
the predefined threshold comprising an absolute light level (¶12L9-12: as an absolute or relative value)
Regarding claim 4, Simons/Anderson discloses in Anderson the method of claim 1,
the light sensor (21) comprising an ambient light sensor. (¶51L1-17: the sensor may be visible light sensors; daylight sensors, optical sensors and/or any other type of sensor)
Regarding claim 5, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the method of claim 1, the central device (3) comprising one of:
a network edge device (31) of the plurality of luminaires (2), and a cloud server device (32) reachable via the network edge device (31). (¶81L1-12: a data network interface is in communication with the lighting control system and communicate data that is accumulated by the lighting control system from luminaire and controllers)
Regarding claim 6, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the method of claim 1,
the means (22) for communication comprising wireless communication means (221). (¶45L3-5: the data network may use hard-wire connections or may be a wireless network)
Regarding claim 7, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the method of claim 1, the means (22) for communication comprising wireline communication means (222). (¶45L3-5: the data network may use hard-wire connections or may be a wireless network)
Regarding claim 8, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the method of claim 7, the wireline communication means (222) comprising a lighting control bus. (¶45L5-8: a hard-wire data network may use dedicated data lines, or may communicate data over power lines for example, power lines used to provide power to the plurality of luminaires)
Regarding claim 12, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Anderson the method of claim 1,
modulating (12) the light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) comprising directing (121) a light source onto the light sensor (21). (¶61L1-4: the device may transmit optical signal via an optical transmitter; the optical transmitter may be for example a laser pointer)
Regarding claim 14, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the method of claim 1
associating (14) the network address and the respective luminaire (2) comprising associating (141) the network address and the identifier (42) of the respective luminaire (2). (¶46L13-16: commissioning involves associating a network address with each hardware identifier and further associating each hardware identifier with a network element on the building plan)
Regarding claim 15, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Anderson the method of claim 1, further comprising indicating (15) a commissioning success by the respective luminaire (2). (¶13L1-15: the control devices may provide feedback to the user to indicate that they have been added to the group in response to the confirmation message; for example provide feedback via lighting load by flashing)
Regarding claim 16, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses a lighting system (5), comprising
a plurality of luminaires (2) (Simons ¶44L2-3: a plurality of luminaires [140-149]), respectively comprising a light sensor (21) (Anderson ¶12L2-6: lighting control device ach include a visible light sensor), and
means (22) for communication (Simons ¶45L1-3: the plurality of luminaires [140-149], the controller and the lighting control system [160] are connected by a data network) to a central device (3) (Simons ¶44L3-4: a lighting control system (LCS) [160]); and
being configured for commissioning according to a method (1) claim 1. (as rejected above)
Regarding claim 17, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simon the lighting system (5) of claim 16, further comprising the central device (3). (¶44L3-4: a lighting control system (LCS) [160])
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons/Anderson/Nolan in view of US2017/0160371A1 hereinafter “Bockle”
Regarding claim 3, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses the method (1) of claim 1
Simons/Anderson/Nolan does not expclitly disclose:
the assessment relating to a steepness of a change of the intensity; and the predefined threshold comprising a time rate of change of light level.
Bockle discloses a lighting system with a commissioning device utilizing intensity information capture by optical sensors, wherein the intensity information reflects time-dependent intensity variation. (¶183L1-6)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system and commissioning method disclosed by Simons/Anderson/Nolan to utilize the time-dependent intensity variation as disclosed by Bockle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because a time related threshold is required for a time dependent comparison.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons/Anderson/Nolan in view of US2023/0363070A1 hereinafter “Movahed”
Regarding claim 9, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses in Simons the method (1) of claim 1
Simons/Anderson/Nolan does not expclitly disclose:
the building layout plan (4) comprising an identifier (42) and a position (43) of the respective luminaire (2).
Movahed discloses a commissioning map that indicates position of devices (¶36L1-18: perform an initial step of commissioning map and visually present those location to the user on commissioning map as discrete icons)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have the initial auto-commissioning process disclosed by Movahed to generate a map of the environment first to be used as the building plan for Simons.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to auto correlate physical location and unique digital identifier. (Movahed ¶3)
Regarding claim 10, Simons/Anderson/Nolan in view of Movahed hereinafter “Simons/Anderson/Nolan/Movahed” discloses in Movahed the method (1) of claim 9
the position (43) of the respective luminaire (2) comprising one of: a relative position, and an absolute position. (¶37L1-9: provide it with an absolute location and display each device relative to the absolute position)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone/Anderson in view of machine translation of CN102301826A hereinafter “Pereira”
Regarding claim 13, Simons/Anderson/Nolan discloses the method (1) of claim 1
Simons/Anderson/Nolan on does not expclitly disclose:
modulating (12) the light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) comprising shading (122) the light sensor (21).
Pereira discloses an operation of light sensor wherein modulating (12) the light input of the light sensor (21) of the respective luminaire (2) comprising shading (122) the light sensor (21) (Page.3 L26-29: assigned an address, achieved by manipulating the light incident on the light sensor such as by shielding the light sensor)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the laser as incident light as disclosed by Simons to be shielding the light sensor as disclosed by Pereira.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Pereira recognizes they are equivalent of each other and substitutable. (Page.3 L26-29: by an external light source such as a laser point or by shielding the light sensor)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argument amounts to arguing against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, applicant argued Simon discloses use of acoustic sensors and does not suggest using a predetermined path when light sensor are used and Anderson does not suggest use of predetermined commissioning sequence.
The applicant has failed to address the combination of Simon in view of Anderson, wherein the examiner utilize the predetermine path disclosed by Simon (as shown in Step 610 in Fig.6 of Simon) and replacing the acoustic sensor with utilizing light sensor for commissioning as disclosed by Anderson (¶12L6-9: the lighting control device may receive an optical signal from the mobile device (e.g. from an optical transmitter)).
The examiner submits that by doing this, the benefit of using a light based commissioning method of Anderson can improve upon the system of Simon, when used in a loud environment, such as a factory floor or warehouse, wherein acoustic sensor might not be effective.
Furthermore, the system of Simon/Anderson is further improved by the disclosure of Nolan, wherein Nolan contemplates a predetermine layout of the building in order for the system to know the layout and obstacle are located; thus by utilize the predetermine layout, the system of Simon can prescribed a more efficient prescribed path for the commissioner to walk to minimize time avoiding obstacles.
For the at least foregoing reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844