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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/06/24 and 11/14/24 have 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: on line 5 of page 2, the word --the-- should be inserted after "on", note that light input detected by the first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell has already been recited on line 2 of this page (and also note that the word "and" on line 2 of page 2 should be changed to --and/or--, in order to be consistent with what is recited on line 5). On line 7 of page 2, the wording "at" should be changed to --on--, note what is indicated on line 9 of page 2. On line 15 of page 2, the second occurrence of the word "at" should again be changed to --on--. On line 29 of page 2, "said detection" is unclear because it cannot be determined if this is referring to detection of the vehicle or detection of the light input (note that both of these two different detection functions are recited on lines 27-28 of page 2). On line 16 of page 3, the word "at" should be changed to --received by--. On line 4 of page 5, the word "at" should be changed to --by--, and note that the same change should also be made on lines 10 and 25 of page 5. On line 16 of page 5, the word --first-- should be inserted before "vertical", and the word --second-- should be inserted before "vertical" on line 17 of page 5. On line 18 of page 5, "a" should be changed to --the--, and note that the same change should also be made on line 19 of page 5. On line 5 of page 7, "may receive" should be changed to --receives--. On line 12 of page 7, the word "indicate" should be changed to --indicates--, and on line 13 of page 7, a comma should be inserted after "cells". On line 9 of page 8, the word "stage" should be changed to --mode-- and note that the same change should also be made on lines 10, 13, 20, 1 and 24 of this page. On line 6 of page 8, "improve legibility" should be changed to --assist understanding--. On line 3 of page 10, the word --and-- should be inserted before "it". On line 27 of page 10, "at" should be changed to --by--, and also on this line, --and output-- should be inserted before "to". On line 18 of page 12, "a" should be changed to --the-- (note that a road 524 has already been recited on the previous line). On line 19 of page 12, "The" should be changed to --Each of the--, and also on this line, "all comprise" should be changed to --comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because all of the blank boxes shown in figure 2 of the originally filed drawings need to be provided with text labels, i.e., blank boxes 206 and 208 need to be labeled "first solar cell" and "second solar cell", blank box 210 needs to be labeled "solar panel", blank box 212 needs to be labeled "control unit", blank box 214 needs to be labeled "battery", blank box 204 needs to be labeled "streetlight" and blank box 216 needs to be labeled "communication module", as indicated on pages 10-11 of the originally filed specification.
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. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the penultimate line of claim 1, the word "control" should be indented, i.e., indented similarly to the word "determine" on line 6 (note that "determine" and "control" both refer to the functions of the control unit recited on line 5 of claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-15 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 regards as the invention.
On line 6 of claim 1, it appears that the word "and" should be changed to --and/or--, i.e., in order to be consistent with what is recited on the last two lines of claim 1. The current recitation of the word "and" on line 6 of claim 1 means that the control unit is configured to determine an orientation of both the first solar cell and the second solar cell based on light input detected by both the first solar cell and the second solar cell. However, if the word "and" on line 6 of claim 1 is changed to --and/or--, as indicated above, then claim 1 would require that the control unit is configured to determine an orientation of both the first solar cell and the second solar cell based on light input detected by either or both of the first solar cell and the second solar cell. Applicant should therefore clear up this ambiguity by changing "and" on line 6 of claim 1 to --and/or--, in order to be consistent with what is recited on the last two lines of claim 1, if this is in fact what applicant is trying to recite in claim 1.
Also in claim 1, on the penultimate line thereof, the word --the-- should be inserted after "on", if the word "and" on line 6 is changed to --and/or--, as noted above.
Also in claim 1, on the penultimate line thereof, --at least one-- should be inserted before the word "first", and on the last line of claim 1, --at least one-- should be inserted before the word "second".
Also in claim 1, on the last line thereof, "solar cells" should be changed to --at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell--.
On line 3 of claim 2, --at least one-- should be inserted before "first", and --at least one-- should be inserted before "second".
On the last line of claim 2, "said detection" lacks clear antecedent basis, the reason being that it cannot be determined if this is referring to the detection of the light input or the detection of the vehicle (note lines 3-4 of claim 2 which recite both detection functions, i.e., detecting of a vehicle approaching the lamp post, and also light input detected by at least one of the first and second solar cells).
On line 5 of claim 4, it appears that "a" should be changed to --the--, note that line 9 of claim 1 already recites the light output of the streetlight.
Also on line 5 of claim 4, the word --the-- should be inserted after "monitor", note that light input detected by the at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell has already been recited in claim 1.
On line 7 of claim 4, --at least one-- should be inserted before "first" and --at least one-- should be inserted before "second".
On line 9 of claim 4, the word --the-- should again be inserted before "light input", note that light input detected by the at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell has already been recited in claim 1.
On line 11 of claim 4, --at least one-- should be inserted before "first", and --at least one-- should be inserted before "second".
On the penultimate line of claim 4, the word --the-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before "light", again note that light input detected by the at least one first solar cell and/or the at least one second solar cell has already been recited in claim 1.
On the last line of claim 4, "solar cells" should again be changed to --at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell--.
On line 3 of claim 5, --solar cell-- should be inserted after the word "first".
On line 5 of claim 6, "the known current light output of the streetlight" lacks antecedent basis, i.e., the word "known" should be deleted.
On the last line of claim 6, "solar cells" should again be changed to --at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell--.
On the second line of claim 7, the word --first-- should be inserted before "vertical", and on the last line of this claim, the word --second-- should be inserted before "vertical".
On line 3 of claim 15, the word "stage" should be changed to --mode--.
On the penultimate line of claim 15, "solar cells" should again be changed to --at least one first solar cell and the at least one second solar cell--.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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 discloses or suggests a streetlight lamp post comprising a streetlight mounted on a lamp post, first and second solar cells and a control unit configured to perform the determining and controlling functions recited on lines 6 and 9 of claim 1.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited on the attached PTO-892 form show various examples of streetlight lamp posts comprising solar cells, none of which is seen to disclose or suggest a control unit configured to perform the determining and controlling functions recited on lines 6 and 9 of claim 1, and therefore claims 1-15 are patentable over all of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
9. 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 March 6, 2026