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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 2, 2025 have been fully considered. The arguments directed to Ploucher failing to teach rear mounted lights is unpersuasive. The remaining arguments are directed to newly added limitations, for which Examiner uses a new combination to reject the claims, the arguments are moot.
Re Ploucher fails to teach rear and front mounted lights: (Remarks) Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figures 10-11, Ploucher has two set of LED lights 190 and 320 which emit on the front and rear side, respectively. Lights 190 are mounted in the first lower track, while the second set of LED lights 320 are mounted on the second lower track. Moreover, as seen in Figure 10, where the device is used on a sign, both the front and rear of the sign is lit by a respective set of the lights. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 have been 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.
Re 1-3, 5, and 7: in claim 1, the limitation on lines 3-5 render the claim indefinite, specifically: “wherein the elongated base comprises multiple mounting points for solar panels allowing adjustments for maximum sun exposure.” The term “maximum sun exposure” in the limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum sun exposure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner has read the claim as “wherein the elongated base comprises a mounting point.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploucher et al. US 9,470,385 (“Ploucher”) in view of Florman US 20130240690 (“Florman”).
Re 1 and 5: In claim 1, Ploucher teaches (Figs. 1-11; col. 8 ll 1-25):
an elongated 60 base having an upper-end portion and a lower-end portion;
one or more solar panels 170 mounted on the upper-end portion, wherein the elongated base comprises multiple mounting points for solar panels allowing adjustments for maximum sun exposure (Fig. 11);
a plurality of front lights 190 mounted to a front side of the lower-end portion of the elongated base;
a plurality of rear lights 320 mounted to a rear side of the lower-end portion of the elongated base.
Ploucher does not explicitly teach:
Claim 1: a plurality of first L-shaped brackets coupled to a left side of the elongated base, and a plurality of second L-shaped brackets coupled to a right side of the elongated base, wherein the plurality of the first L-shaped brackets and the plurality of second L-shaped brackets are configured for mounting the outdoor lighting system to a fence.
Claim 5: wherein the plurality of the first L-shaped brackets are two in number and the plurality of second L-shaped brackets are two in number.
Florman teaches (Figs. 8-9):
Claim 1: a plurality of first L-shaped brackets coupled to a left side of the elongated base, and a plurality of second L-shaped brackets coupled to a right side of the elongated base, wherein the plurality of the first L-shaped brackets and the plurality of second L-shaped brackets are configured for mounting the outdoor lighting system to a fence.
Claim 5: wherein the plurality of the first L-shaped brackets are two in number and the plurality of second L-shaped brackets are two in number.
By using L-shaped brackets, it permits for the installation of the solar-powered light on a wider variety of places and structures, thereby expanding where the device can be used. In turn, it makes the solar-powered light more adaptable in terms of where it can be placed, thereby expanding its utility as a user can have solar-powered light in more areas. The number of brackets used depends on the structure the device is being affixed to; thus, having any number of brackets, such as two, is an obvious modification based on the exigencies of the installation location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Ploucher with Florman’s teachings in order to allow the device to be installed in more locations, thereby expanding its utility.
Re 3: wherein the outdoor lighting system further comprises: one or more batteries 122.
Re 7: wherein the plurality of front lights and the plurality of rear lights are LEDs (Fig. 11).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ploucher in view of Florman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bliss US 20180073719 (“Bliss”).
Re 2: Ploucher in view of Florman does not explicitly disclose a light sensor configured to detect environmental light.
Bliss teaches wherein the outdoor lighting system further comprises: a light sensor configured to detect environmental light (¶46).
Using a light sensor configured to detect environmental light, ensures that light is emitted when it is most needed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify the combination of Ploucher and Florman with the teachings of Bliss in order to ensure the device operates when it is most needed without user intervention.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art: US 20090040750 teaching a solar-powered light pole.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/EST.
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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
