DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 02/09/26 has been received and entered in the case. The amendment to claim 1 is now deemed to distinguish patentably over the previously applied prior art; however, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(b) are necessitated, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12-14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the first line of claim 1, a comma should be inserted after "1".
On the first line of claim 3, a comma should be inserted after "2".
On the last line of claim 3, the word --and-- should be inserted after the comma.
On the first line of claim 7, a comma should be inserted after "1".
On line 10 of claim 7, the word --the-- should be inserted after "of".
On line 13 of claim 7, the word --and-- should be inserted after the comma.
On the last line of claim 8, the word "person" should be changed to --persons--.
On line 15 of claim 12, the word "comprises" should be changed to --comprise--.
On line 17 of claim 12, the word "comprise" should be changed to --comprises--.
On line 26 of claim 12, the word --and-- should be inserted before "wherein".
On the first line of claim 13, a comma should be inserted after "12".
On line 3 of claim 13, the word --and-- should be inserted before "wherein".
On line 3 of claim 14, the word --and-- should be inserted before "wherein".
On the last line of claim 17, the word "person" should be changed to --persons--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
On line 6 of claim 1, the recitation of "the one or more persons in the area" lacks antecedent basis.
On line 11 of claim 1, the recitation of "at least one person in the area" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that "at least one person in the area" has already been recited on line 4 of claim 1, i.e., it cannot be determined if the recitation of at least one person in the area, on line 11 of claim 1, is referring to the same at least one person in the area which has already been recited on line 4 of claim 1, or if it is referring to a different at least one person in the area.
On line 20 of claim 1, "the one or more persons in the area" lacks antecedent basis.
On line 21 of claim 1, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On lines 23-24 of claim 1, "the number of persons indicated by the presence sensor" lacks antecedent basis.
On the last line of claim 1, "the number of persons" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that claim 1 recites "the number of persons" in two different sections of claim 1, i.e., the number of persons in the area determined by the microprocessor, as set forth on lines 11-12 of claim 1, and the number of persons indicated by the presence sensor, as set forth on lines 23-24 of claim 1. As such, it cannot be determined which instance of "the number of persons" is being referred to on the last line of claim 1.
On the last two lines of claim 4, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On the last two lines of claim 5, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On lines 3-4 of claim 6, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On line 12 of claim 7, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On the last line of claim 8, "one or more person" lacks clear antecedent basis, i.e., it appears that applicant is referring to the one or more persons previously recited in claims 1 and 7, although this is not clear to the examiner.
On line 24 of claim 12, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On the second line of claim 15, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On lines 3-4 of claim 16, "the one or more persons in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
On the last line of claim 17, "the one or more person in the area" again lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected as being indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record is seen to disclose or suggest the new limitations added to independent claim 1, i.e., when the passive infrared sensor does not detect motion for a predetermined interval, the controller is operative to query the microprocessor to determine whether the number of persons indicated by the presence sensor is greater than zero, and to maintain or turn off operation of the one or more devices based on whether the number of persons is greater than zero.
Action is Final
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 19, 2026