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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, despite the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner, the instant claims are broader than and thus anticipated by the patent claims. For examples:
Claims 1, the elements and limitations are anticipated by the patent claims 6 and 7.
Claims 2, the elements and limitations are anticipated by the patent claim 8.
Claims 3, the elements and limitations are anticipated by the patent claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chemel et al. (US 2012/0235579).
Claim 1, Chemel discloses an interior lighting system (Figs. 36-40B), comprising:
a first interior lighting assembly (e.g., lighting fixture 3704, Fig. 37) including: a lens (see P[0201], [0461]…lens…) through which light may be projected; and a light source including a sheet (PCB 3012, Fig. 30) including one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs 3008, Fig. 30 and see P[0439]) arranged to project light through the lens;
a second vehicle interior lighting assembly (.g., e light fixture 3708, Fig. 37) including the same general components as the first vehicle interior lighting assembly, including a lens and a sheet including one or more LEDs (see Fig. 30, P[0439], 0201], [0461]); and
a controller including a device processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium (see P[0473]….a built-in processor……rule stored in a memory…) including instructions executable by the processor to control operation of the lighting assembly including controlling the first lighting assembly based on output of the second lighting assembly in real time ((see Fig. 40B and P[0494]).
Thus, Chemel discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose the lighting system for a vehicle interior and the sheet is a flexible sheet. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and provide the lighting system inside a vehicle, since applicant has not disclosed that the system for illuminating a vehicle interior solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than providing light inside a vehicle, it appears that the lighting system of Chemel would perform equally well for illuminating vehicle interior. Furthermore, It would have to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the sheet as a flexible sheet, since it has been held to be withing the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 2, Chemel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer readable medium includes instructions for receiving lighting performance information from the second lighting assembly and controlling operation of the first lighting assembly based on the performance information regarding the second lighting assembly (information are received through sensors which can be on board the same lighting fixture or from different lighting fixture, see Fig. 40B and P[0494]).
Claim 3, Chemel discloses the system of claim 1, further including a sensor separate from the second lighting assembly configured to detect the output of the second lighting assembly; wherein the computer readable medium includes instructions for receiving lighting performance information regarding the second lighting assembly from the sensor and controlling operation of the first lighting assembly based on the performance information regarding the second lighting assembly (information are received through sensors which can be on board the same lighting fixture or from different lighting fixture, see Fig. 40B and P[0494]).
Claim 4, Chemel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first lighting assembly includes one or more reflective components (see Figs. 41A-42B and P[0456]… total internal reflection and holographic diffuser….) configured to reflect additional light from the LEDs through the lens (each lighting fixture included a plurality of light bars which comprise a plurality of LEDs and TIR optics having holographic diffuser for reflection).
Claim 9, Chemel discloses a system for illuminating (Figs 36-40B) an interior, comprising:
a first lighting assembly (e.g., lighting fixture 3704, Fig. 37); a second lighting assembly (.g., e light fixture 3708, Fig. 37); and
a device processor (see P[0473],…a built-in processor…) and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instruction stored thereon (see P[0473]… an internal rule database. Sensor data may be shared from fixture-to-fixture via the mesh network, and the fixtures may independently act on sensor data based on the rules stored in a fixture memory…) and executable by the processor to perform the following steps:
receiving lighting performance information regarding the first lighting assembly (light information are sense from light sensor, see Figs. 40A-40B);
receiving lighting performance information regarding the second lighting assembly (light information are sense from light sensor, see Figs. 40A-40B);
making a determination that the second lighting assembly is not operating as intended (see Fig. 40B and P[0494]); and
adjusting operation of the first lighting assembly to at least partially compensate for a reduction in lighting performance of the second lighting assembly (see Fig. 40B and P[0494]).
Thus, Chemel discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose the system for illuminating a vehicle interior. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and provide the lighting system inside a vehicle, since applicant has not disclosed that the system for illuminating a vehicle interior solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than providing light inside a vehicle, it appears that the lighting system of Chemel would perform equally well for illuminating vehicle interior.
Claim 10, Chemel discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the computer readable medium further includes instructions for: making a determination that the first lighting assembly is not operating as intended (see Fig. 40B and P[0494]); and
adjusting operation of the second lighting assembly to at least partially compensate for a reduction in lighting performance of the first lighting assembly (see Fig. 40B and P[0494]).
Claim 11, Chemel discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the lighting performance information received for the second lighting assembly is received from the second lighting assembly itself (see P[0494]… LED light bar failures may be identified via light sensors, onboard error detection…).
Claim 12, Chemel discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the lighting performance information received for the second lighting assembly is received from a sensor separate from the second lighting assembly (see P[0494]… When one fixture or part of a fixture fails, neighboring fixtures detect this (via sensing onboard or via notification over network)…).
Claims 15-18 are rejected as above claims 9-12 since the elements and limitations are similar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valentine, JR. et al. (US 2016/0214529) discloses a vehicle interior lighting system, comprising: a first vehicle interior lighting assembly including: a lens through which light may be projected; and a light source including a flexible sheet including one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged to project light through the lens; a second vehicle interior lighting assembly including the same general components as the first vehicle interior lighting assembly, including a lens and a flexible sheet including one or more LEDs; and a controller including a device processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions executable by the processor to control operation of the lighting assembly.
Hutson et al. (US 2020/0375016) disclose a lighting system, comprising: a first lighting assembly including: a lens through which light may be projected; and a light source including a flexible sheet including one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged to project light through the lens; a second lighting assembly including the same general components as the first vehicle interior lighting assembly, including a lens and a flexible sheet including one or more LEDs; and a controller including a device processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions executable by the processor to control operation of the lighting assembly including controlling the first lighting assembly based on output of the second lighting assembly in real time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, 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.
/ANH Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844 12/22/25