DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the originally filed specification, no description of blank box 22 shown in instant figure 1 is seen, and therefore it cannot be determined what this box represents. Also, on line 24 of page 1, --and/or-- should be inserted before the word "location". On line 21 of page 2, a period should be inserted at the end of the line after "sources". On page 6, line 29, the wording --numeral-- should be inserted after "14", and also on this line "a circuit" should be changed to --circuits-- (note that reference numeral 14 represents activation circuits, as indicated on line 34 of page 6). On page 7, lines 8 and 15, the word --numeral-- should be inserted after "reference". On line 25 of page 10, "P" should be changed to
--PD--. On line 4 of page 11, a comma should be inserted at the end of the line after "modalities". On line 23 of page 14, the word "branch" should be changed to --art--, and on line 34 of this page, the word "sector" should be changed to --art--. On line 22 of page 15, the word "sector" should again be changed to --art--. On line 24 of page 19, the word "repeatedly" should be changed to --previously--. On line 19 of page 21, --it is-- should be inserted after the word "time". On page 22, reference numeral 22 should be included in the list of references (as noted above, it is not clear what blank box 22 is in instant figure 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because the blank boxes 14, 16, 18 and 22 in instant figure 1 need to be provided with text labels, i.e., blank box 14 needs to be labeled "activation circuitry", blank box 16 needs to be labeled "photometric interface circuitry", blank box 18 needs to be labeled "calibration circuitry" and blank box 22 needs to be labeled with text as well. Also, in instant figure 2, blank box S should be labeled "sensor".
Applicant should note MPEP 608.02(b), subsection II, which indicates that drawing figures should be objected to by the examiner for the situation where unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings have not been provided with descriptive text labels (note form paragraph 6.22 where the first "Examiner Note" reads as follows: "In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example, --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels--". Moreover, applicant should note 37 CFR 1.83(a) which also indicates that each of the rectangular boxes shown in the drawing figures should be illustrated in the form of a labeled rectangular box. Applicant should also note that if the blank boxes are too small to fit the text labels inside these boxes, the text labels can be provided outside of the boxes with a line pointing to the box (as shown, for example, in figure 2 of USPAP 2002/0159276, i.e., blank box 18 with a text label “Oscillator” outside the box 18 with a line pointing thereto).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 1, "lighting devices" should be changed to --a lighting device--, i.e., in order to be consistent with the recitation of "said lighting device" used throughout the remainder of claim 1, and also throughout dependent claims 2-14.
On line 6 of claim 1, "a lighting device" should be changed to --said lighting device--.
On line 12 of claim 1, the word --based-- should be inserted before "on", and also on this line, the word --thereby-- should be inserted before "obtaining" (or, alternatively, the word --and-- should be inserted before "obtaining").
On line 2 of claim 2, the word --further-- should be inserted before "comprising", i.e., the method of claim 1 comprises the steps of positioning, detecting, processing and producing, as indicated on lines 3-15 of claim 1, and therefore in order to recite that the method comprises the additional step in claim 2, the word --further-- needs to be included on the first line thereof (and note that the same insertion should also be made on the first line of each of claims 3-11, i.e., each of claims 3-11 goes back to claim 1 and each of these claims recites one or more additional steps, and as such the word
--further-- needs to be recited on the first line thereof).
On line 4 of claim 2, it appears that the word --the-- or --said-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before "light emission parameters", the reason being that light emission parameters have already been recited on line 3 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Also, it appears that "the lighting device" recited on line 4 of claim 2 should be changed to --the plurality of electrically powered light-radiation sources--, i.e., in order to be consistent with what is recited on lines 2-3 of claim 1.
On line 5 of claim 2, it appears that the word --the-- or --said-- should be inserted before "light radiation" (note that "light radiation" has already been recited on line 6 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends).
On line 9 of claim 2, it appears that the word --the-- or --said-- should again be inserted before "light radiation" (again note that "light radiation" has already been recited on line 6 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends).
On line 5 of claim 7, it appears that --, thereby-- should be inserted before the word "converting" (or, alternatively, --, and-- should be inserted before the word "converting").
On line 2 of claim 12, the word "portions" should be deleted, and on the last line of this claim, the word "with" should be changed to --using--.
On line 2 of claim 14, the word --processor-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before "device".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hotelling et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,952,095.
As to claim 1, Hotelling et al discloses, in figure 3,
a method for producing photometric calibration data (the claimed photometric calibration data is generated within either controller 300 or controller 306 of Hotelling et al's figure 3) for a lighting device (the claimed lighting device is Hotelling et al's lighting device 302) comprising a plurality of electrically powered light-radiation sources having respective light emission parameters, the method comprising:
positioning a photometric sensor (the claimed photometric sensor is Hotelling et al's photometric sensor 308) configured to be impinged upon by light radiation emitted by said lighting device;
detecting, via the photometric sensor, and with said lighting device de-activated, a background lighting level signal (see column 4, lines 50-62, and also column 9, lines 7-29, of Hotelling et al which disclose attenuating environmental noise using dark-channel subtraction, i.e., during operation of the figure 3 system of this reference, photometric sensor 308 detects background lighting when one or more of the individual light sources 302 is de-activated);
detecting, via the photometric sensor, with said lighting device activated, light emission signals (again see column 4, lines 50-62, and also column 9, lines 7-29, of Hotelling et al which disclose attenuating environmental noise using dark-channel subtraction, i.e., during operation of the Hotelling et al figure 3 system, photometric sensor 308 detects light-emission signals of one or more of the individual light sources 302 when such one or more individual light sources are activated);
processing said light-emission signals based on said background lighting level signal, thereby obtaining clean emission signals as a result (during operation of the figure 3 system of Hotelling et al, the light-emission signals output by light sources 302 are processed within controller 300 and/or controller 306, and such processing is based on the above-noted detected background lighting level signal, which results in clean emission signals being obtained, i.e., via the dark-channel subtraction operation described by Hotelling et al at column 9, lines 7-18); and
producing said photometric calibration data based on said clean emission signals (during operation of the figure 3 system of Hotelling et al, the above-noted photometric calibration data, which is used for controlling light sources 302, is genereted within controller 300 and/or controller 306, and such photometric calibration data is inherently based on such clean emission signals).
As to claim 2, note that during operation of the figure 3 system of Hotelling et al, the above-noted photometric calibration data will be used to modify the light emission parameters output by the light sources 302.
As to claims 12 and 13, the claimed computer program product comprising software code that can be executed in a processor device (claim 12, lines 1-2) and the claimed processor device (claim 13, line 1) will be inherent within controller 300 and/or within controller 306, note that each of these controllers is disclosed by Hotelling et al as including a microprocessor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotelling et al, supra.
To the extent that Hotelling et al does not disclose remotely uploading the above-noted processors within controller 300 and/or controller 306 with the above-noted computer program, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a processor is typically uploaded remotely with a computer program, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner, and the motivation for performing such remote uploading is self-evident, i.e., so that the data used for determining how controllers 300 and 306 operate can be easily provided into these controllers by a user at any time from any location.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-11 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.
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 method of claim 1 with the further steps of detecting, processing and calculating recited on lines 2-13 of claim 3, nor is any of the prior art of record see to disclose or suggest the method of claim 1 with the further steps of activating, detecting, processing and producing recited on lines 3-14 of claim 8. Claims 4-7 are allowable in view of their dependencies on allowable claim 3, and claims 9-11 are allowable in view of their dependencies on allowable claim 8.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 1 of Spero (USPAP 2000/0105264), cited by applicant, is also seen to anticipate claims 1, 2, 12 and 13, and render obvious claim 14, in view of what is indicated in the European search report filed with applicant's 10/16/24 IDS. Specifically, the claimed photometric sensor reads on Spero’s sensor 8, and this sensor performs the function of receiving light radiation emitted by light sources 3, i.e., it detects background lighting when the lighting devices 3 are de-activated and also detects light emission signals from the light sources 3 when they are activated. The claimed processing and producing steps recited on the last five lines of claim 1 will be inherent during the operation of Spero's figure 1 system, note that the claimed photometric calibration data is generated within controller 7. The remaining references cited on the attached PTO-892 form, i.e., Johannessen et al, Debiez et al and Pedersen, disclose three further examples of producing photometric calibration data for a use in controlling a lighting device, each including a photometric sensor for detecting light radiation emitted by one of more light emitting elements, see figure 1 of Johannessen et al, figure 12 of Debiez et al and figure 6 of Pedersen. However, none of these three references is seen to disclose or suggest the limitation in claim 1 of detecting a background lighting level signal with the lighting device being de-activated.
Conclusion
11. 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 January 3, 2026