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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 03/17/2026.
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 1-17 and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12096536 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Reference patent claim 1 recites a system including: a first set of AC power lines; a first set of lighting modules, each including PLC circuitry, a digital controller, an AC powerline interface, an AC/DC power converter, and a DC lighting element controlled by the digital controller; a PLC control transmitter that sends lighting commands on a first control signal band via the AC power lines; and the AC powerline interface of each lighting module comprising electrical filtering substantially blocking absorption of signals in the first control signal band; and the digital controller adapted to ignore subsequent commands for a first period of time after receiving a first command.
Instant claim 1 similarly recites an aircraft field lighting system including: a set of AC power lines; a PLC control transmitter coupled to the AC power lines (instant claim 1 further recites coupling via an isolation transformer); and lighting modules including a digital controller, an AC powerline interface including an electrical filter that substantially blocks absorption of control signals, an AC/DC power converter connected to the interface, and a DC powered lighting element connected to the converter; with the electrical filter positioned between the AC lines and the converter to reject the control signals at the converter inlet.
The reference patent’s recitation that each lighting module includes an AC powerline interface connected to the AC power lines and an AC/DC power converter connected to the AC powerline interface, with the interface comprising electrical filtering substantially blocking absorption of control-band signals, reads on (or renders obvious) the instant architecture of placing the electrical filter between the AC lines and the AC/DC converter such that control signals are rejected at the converter inlet.
Instant claim 17 likewise recites the same AC-lines/PLC-transmitter/lighting-module architecture and further includes a timer designed to activate in response to receiving a control signal message, which corresponds to the reference patent claim 1 requirement that the digital controller ignores subsequent commands for a first period of time after receiving a first command (i.e., a timed ignore window).
Additionally, reference patent claim 7 expressly recites an aircraft field lighting system including lighting modules with an isolation transformer connected to the AC powerline interface and electrical filtering substantially blocking absorption of signals in the control band. Thus, any distinction in the instant claim 1 regarding where an isolation transformer is recited (e.g., at the transmitter coupling versus in the module interface) is, at most, an obvious variation of transformer-based coupling/isolation already claimed in the reference patent.
Accordingly, instant claims 1 and 17 are not patentably distinct from reference patent claim 1 and/or claim 7.
Instant claims 2–6, 11 recite particulars of the filtering and signaling (e.g., targeting a communication frequency range; specific filter types; inductive element range; control frequency range; preventing converter noise back onto the line). The reference patent claims already require (i) control signals on at least a first control signal band (and, in claim 5, a second control signal band distinct from the first) and (ii) electrical filtering substantially blocking absorption of signals in the control band(s). Expressly stating particular frequency ranges, component values, or filter implementations to accomplish the already-claimed “band” and “filtering” functionality constitutes no more than an obvious optimization/implementation detail of the claimed electrical filtering and band-limited PLC signaling of the reference patent.
Accordingly, instant claims 2–6, 11 are not patentably distinct from the reference patent claims (at least claims 1, 5, and 7).
Instant claim 7 further recites that each lighting module comprises a timer designed to activate in response to receiving a control signal message. However, reference patent claim 1 requires the digital controller to ignore subsequent commands for a first period of time after receiving a first command, which necessarily entails timing logic initiated upon receipt of the first command (i.e., a timer/counter/timeout).
Accordingly, claim 7 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 (and further supported by claims 2 and 4 of the reference patent).
Instant claim 12 recites a method of distributing power and control signals including: providing power to AC lines; sending control signals from a PLC control transmitter to lighting modules; filtering control signals using an electrical filter of an AC powerline interface; and rejecting control signals at an inlet of an AC/DC converter connected to the interface.
These steps correspond to the functional operation of the reference patent claim 1 system (PLC transmitter sending commands over AC power lines on a control band; lighting modules including an AC powerline interface with electrical filtering substantially blocking absorption of the control-band signals; and the converter connected to the interface). Thus, the instant method is an obvious variant of practicing the reference patent’s claimed system.
Instant claim 13 recites receiving a first control message, starting a timer, and repeating the first control message when the timer exceeds a threshold; instant claim 16 recites ignoring control messages during a period when the timer is running. These limitations are not patentably distinct from the reference patent claim 1 limitation that the digital controller ignores subsequent commands for a first period of time, and reference patent claim 3 limitation that the controller is adapted to retransmit content based on the first command after a second period of time.
Instant claim 14 (PLC control transmitter receiving the repeated message as confirmation) is likewise not patentably distinct because the reference patent claim 3 retransmission of content based on the first command inherently provides a return communication that can function as confirmation, and in any event constitutes an obvious use of the claimed retransmission.
Accordingly, instant claims 12–16 are not patentably distinct from reference patent claims 1 and 3.
Instant claim 8 recites a PLC control transponder bridging control signals between a first PLC network and a second PLC network (second set of AC lines and second set of lighting modules). Reference patent claim 6 expressly recites a PLC control transponder with first and second PLC circuitry connected to first and second AC power line sets, and instructions to receive incoming commands on the first AC lines and send repeated commands toward the second lighting modules on a second control band based on the incoming commands. Thus, instant claim 8 is not patentably distinct from reference patent claim 6.
Instant claim 9 (separation using a generator) does not render the subject matter patentably distinct because reference patent claim 6 already recites two separate powerline networks (first and second sets of AC lines) bridged by a transponder; specifying a particular separation/power-source configuration (generator) for the already-claimed separate networks constitutes an obvious implementation detail.
Instant claim 10 (coupling the transponder to each network using respective isolation transformers) is, at most, an obvious variation in view of the reference patent’s express recitation of an isolation transformer in claim 7 and the use of transformer coupling/isolation in PLC powerline environments.
Instant claim 15 recites repeating a first control message to a second powerline communication network using a PLC control transponder. Reference patent claim 6 likewise recites a PLC control transponder coupled between first and second sets of AC power lines (first and second PLC networks) configured to receive incoming lighting commands from the first AC lines and send repeated lighting commands toward lighting modules on the second AC lines based on the incoming commands.
Accordingly, instant claims 8–10 and 15 are not patentably distinct from reference patent claim 6 (and claim 7 as to transformer-based coupling).
Instant claim 21 further recites that the at least one timer includes a blackout timer associated with a blackout period and a repeat timer associated with repeating a received command. Reference patent claim 1 expressly requires the digital controller to "ignore … subsequent commands … for a first period of time after receiving a first command" — a timed blackout period — and reference patent claim 3 expressly requires the digital controller to "retransmit … after a second period of time, content based on the first command" — a timed repeat behavior. Two distinct timed behaviors necessarily entail corresponding timing mechanisms; labeling them as a "blackout timer" and a "repeat timer" is not a patentable distinction.
Instant claim 22 recites resubmission of the control signal to a second lighting module based on expiration of the at least one timer. Reference patent claim 3 already requires retransmission of content after a second period of time, and retransmission over the shared powerline inherently reaches other lighting modules on the same PLC network.
Instant claim 23 recites that resubmission continues until ACKs are received or until no NACKs are received. Reference patent claim 4 requires the controller to determine the retransmission period "based on the first command," and selecting an ACK- or NACK-based termination condition for the already-claimed retransmission of reference claim 3 is, at most, an obvious implementation detail.
Accordingly, instant claims 21–23 are not patentably distinct from reference patent claims 1, 3, and 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539) and further in view of Baum (US 20110164364 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell disclose an aircraft field lighting system for distributing power and control signals provided in a form of a powerline communication network (Campbell discloses a “powerline communication control system” in which a master controller superimposes lighting command outputs onto a power distribution system and slave units receive and separate the command signal from the power signal ([0003], [0008]–[0009], [0024], [0026]). The recited “aircraft field” is a recitation of intended use and does not impart structural distinction.) comprising:
a set of AC power lines (Campbell discloses a “conventional power distribution system 12, such as a 117 volt AC network” ([0022]));
a Powerline Communication (PLC) control transmitter coupled to the set of AC power lines (Campbell discloses at least one master controller 14 that generates “powerline control signals 14A” and “imposes” them onto the wiring of the power distribution system together with the AC power signal and transmits the signals through the power distribution system to slave units ([0024]–[0025], [0027]));
a set of lighting modules (Campbell discloses one or more LED fixture slave units 16 coupled to the power distribution system to receive both the power signal and the superimposed control signals ([0022], [0026])) comprising:
a digital controller connected to the PLC control transmitter (Campbell discloses a slave unit including a slave control microprocessor that receives the separated control signals and decodes them to generate corresponding lighting control commands ([0028]). Campbell also describes a slave control processor that converts received PLC command outputs into corresponding lighting unit control commands for the lighting unit ([0038]–[0040]). (These are communicatively connected to the master via the PLC commands carried on the power distribution system, as described at [0024]–[0026].));
an AC powerline interface (Campbell discloses a communication interface / “command receiving interface” connected to the power distribution system for receiving the combined power + control signal and separating the control signal from the power signal ([0028]; see also [0036]));
an AC/DC power converter connected to the AC powerline interface (Campbell discloses a power supply in the slave unit that receives the AC power and generates DC power outputs supplied to the lighting units ([0029]). Campbell also describes “power conversion modules” that convert distributed AC power (e.g., 110V AC) to DC power suitable for solid state lighting ([0037])); and
a DC powered lighting element connected to the AC/DC power converter (Campbell discloses LED/solid state lighting units powered from the generated DC outputs and controlled by the decoded PLC commands ([0026], [0029], [0037], [0039]–[0040])).
However, Campbell does not expressly disclose “via an isolation transformer”, “including an electrical filter substantially blocking an absorption of control signals”, and “wherein the electrical filter is positioned between the set of AC power lines and the AC/DC power converter to reject the control signals at an inlet of the AC/DC power converter.”
In an analogous art, Johansson teaches a powerline communication system in which each sender impresses its signals on the power lines with an isolation transformer (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10). Johansson further teaches a master implementation that drives a transmitter isolation transformer for impressing signals onto the line (Johansson col 5 ln 27-48), and describes receiver isolation transformers with their primary windings placed in series with the power conductors for sampling communications signals (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10, col 4 ln 3-31). Therefore, Johansson teaches the missing feature of coupling a PLC transmitter to the power conductors via an isolation transformer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Campbell’s master controller coupling to the power distribution conductors to be via an isolation transformer as taught by Johansson, because Johansson teaches transformer-coupled injection/sampling of PLC signals on power lines and explains that such isolation simplifies circuitry and improves reliability across power/load conditions (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 20, col 5 ln 27-48)—a predictable improvement for a PLC-on-power-conductors lighting system like Campbell.
However, Campbell in view of Johansson does not expressly disclose “including an electrical filter substantially blocking an absorption of control signals” and “wherein the electrical filter is positioned between the set of AC power lines and the AC/DC power converter to reject the control signals at an inlet of the AC/DC power converter.”
In an analogous art, Baum teaches a power supply architecture for powerline networking that includes: an electrical interface for receiving high voltage AC electricity; a low pass filter coupled with the electrical interface via a power cable; a power line modem coupled to the power cable; and an AC to DC converter “coupled with the low pass filter” ([0009], [0024]). Baum further explains that conversion elements (AC-to-DC and DC-to-DC) introduce noise/interference and that the low pass filter is used to filter out and substantially eliminate noise and interference caused by the AC to DC transformer and DC to DC converter ([0027]). In Baum, the low pass filter is thus placed between the incoming AC line interface and the AC/DC conversion path (i.e., at the converter inlet), to block/attenuate higher-frequency components on the line from entering (and/or being coupled by) the conversion circuitry ([0009], [0024]–[0027]). Therefore, Baum teaches an electrical filter positioned between the AC power lines (line interface) and the AC/DC converter path at the converter inlet, performing rejection/attenuation of undesired higher-frequency components at that inlet.
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate an electrical filter positioned between the AC line input and the AC/DC converter in Campbell’s (as combined/modified by Johansson) slave lighting unit, as taught by Baum, because Baum teaches that power conversion circuitry can introduce interference/noise on the power conductors and uses a line-side filter coupled ahead of the AC/DC converter to substantially eliminate such interference on the power cabling (Baum [0027]), thereby improving coexistence between power conversion and powerline communications. Applying Baum’s filter placement to Campbell (as combined/modified by Johansson) predictably reduces coupling between the converter front end and the superimposed control/communication signal, addressing loss/impairment mechanisms associated with downstream power-conversion circuitry interacting with the communications signal.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the electrical filter specifically targets a communication frequency range of the control signals (Baum teaches that power line networking communications occur in specified frequency ranges, e.g., “2–30 MHz … HomePlug AV” or “2–100 MHz …G.hn” ([0027]). Baum further teaches that because AC/DC and DC/DC conversion elements cause switching noise that can corrupt data being transferred, a low pass filter is used to “filter out and substantially eliminate the noise and interference” on the relevant power-line cabling so that data sent/received by the power line modem is not corrupted by such conversion noise ([0027]). Thus, Baum teaches selecting/using the line-side filter in relation to (i.e., to address) the communication frequency range over which power-line communications signals are transferred ([0027]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the electrical filter used in the Campbell-based PLC lighting system (as modified for claim 1) to specifically target the communication frequency range of the PLC control/communication signals, as taught by Baum, in order to reduce interference/noise affecting the PLC communications over the power conductors and thereby improve robustness of the control-signal communications ([0027]).).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the electrical filter prevents signal loss and extends the range of the system (Johansson expressly recognizes PLC signal degradation over distance/line length and teaches improving communication robustness over longer lines, stating “it is therefore an object … to reduce the effect of line length between master and slave” (Johansson col 2 ln 43-45) and that an advantage is reliable operation “over a wide range of power and load conditions and line lengths” (Johansson col 3 ln 15-19). Johansson further explains that certain load-side components in prior systems could absorb pulses on the line preventing good control signal detection (Johansson col 2 ln 34-40), i.e., a form of signal loss. Baum teaches that conversion elements (AC/DC and DC/DC) can cause noise/interference that can corrupt powerline-networked data and that a low pass filter is used to “filter out and substantially eliminate the noise and interference” caused by the converters so that data can be transmitted/received “without additional noise” from those conversion elements (Baum [0027]; see also [0009], [0024] describing the low pass filter coupled ahead of the AC-to-DC converter). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement/configure the line-side electrical filter (as applied to the Campbell-based lighting modules per claim 1) to reduce degradation mechanisms (e.g., converter-caused interference/noise per Baum and load-related pulse absorption per Johansson), thereby preventing effective signal loss and improving/maintaining communications over longer powerline runs (i.e., extending practical system range), consistent with Johansson’s stated objective/advantage regarding reducing the effect of line length and reliable operation over line lengths (Johansson col 2 ln 43-45, col 3 ln 15-19) and Baum’s teaching of filtering to preserve communications integrity in the presence of power conversion noise (Baum [0027]).).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the electrical filter is a bandpass filter, a low-pass filter, or a combination thereof (Baum expressly teaches that the filter is a “low pass filter” in the power-line networking power supply architecture, including: “a low pass filter” (Baum Abstract), and “Power supply 140 includes … a low pass filter 154” (Baum [0024]), where “Low pass filter 154 is coupled with electrical interface 172” and provides the high-voltage AC electricity to the conversion path (Baum [0024]–[0025]).).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the electrical filter is provided in a form of an inductive element in the range of 0.2 mH to 1 mH (Johansson expressly teaches implementing the receiver isolation transformer as an inductor, stating that “[t]he isolation transformers...can be implemented as power inductors with a few turns secondary to decouple the pulse information from off the two-wire lines” (Johansson col 4 ln 48-67). Baum likewise teaches a low pass filter used in-line with the AC input and ahead of conversion circuitry in a PLC-capable power supply architecture (Baum Abstract; [0009]; [0024]–[0025]). Neither Campbell, Johansson, nor Baum expressly recites the specific inductance range of 0.2 mH to 1 mH. However, once the references’ teachings are applied (i.e., implementing the claimed electrical filter as an inductive element / power inductor to achieve the desired line-side filtering/decoupling for PLC coexistence with the power conversion path), selecting an inductance value for that inductor is a routine filter implementation detail parameter that would have been determined based on the desired attenuation characteristics in the communications band and the power-line environment described by the system (e.g., to decouple the communications/pulse information from the line and to mitigate interference associated with conversion circuitry as in Baum) (Johansson col 4 ln 48-67; Baum [0027]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the electrical filter as an inductive element as taught by Johansson, and to select an inductance value within a workable engineering range—including 0.2 mH to 1 mH—to achieve the intended filtering/decoupling performance when integrated into the Campbell-based PLC lighting module system (Johansson col 4 ln 48-67; Baum [0027]).).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the airfield lighting system of claim 1, wherein each lighting module of the set of lighting module further comprises a timer designed to activate in response to receiving a control signal message from the PLC control transmitter (Campbell teaches lighting “slave units” (lighting modules) that receive the superimposed control/command signal from the master over the power distribution conductors and decode it using a slave control microprocessor to generate lighting control commands ([0024]–[0026], [0028]). Johansson teaches a master/slave powerline communication arrangement in which the master initiates communication using a synchronizing pulse and then “places data in various timeslots,” and the slave responds after the master initiates (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10). Johansson further explains that an “initializing control signal defines and synchronizes a plurality of time intervals that follow the initial sync pulse” (Johansson col 1 ln 11-23), and that a synchronizing pulse is used “to signal the start of time slot reporting” (Johansson col 4 ln 32-47). Thus, Johansson teaches that upon receiving the initiating control/sync message, the slave operates with respect to defined/synchronized time intervals (timeslots), which requires starting/activating a timing function at reception of that initiating control signal so the slave can track the subsequent time intervals/timeslots (Johansson col 1 ln 11-23; col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10; col 4 ln 32-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Johansson’s time-slot/synchronizing-pulse communication technique into Campbell’s PLC-controlled lighting modules, such that each lighting module includes a timer/timing function that activates upon receipt of a control signal message (e.g., the initiating/sync pulse) from the PLC control transmitter to synchronize operation to the defined time intervals/timeslots, because this is exactly how Johansson’s master/slave PLC protocol coordinates when data is sent/received and when the slave responds after the master initiates (Johansson col 1 ln 11-23; col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10).).
Regarding claim 11, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the electrical filter is used to prevent AC/DC converter noise back onto the power line (Baum explains that because the power supply includes conversion elements (an AC to DC transformer/converter and a DC to DC converter), data transferred over the power lines is “susceptible to interference as these elements cause noise and interference,” and that this noise can corrupt the data being transferred over the power lines (Baum [0027]). Baum further teaches that the low pass filter is “used to filter out and substantially eliminate the noise and interference on power line cable 164 and power cable 168 caused by AC to DC transformer 144 and DC to DC converter 146,” such that “data sent from [the] power line modem 148 to wall socket 156 can be provided without additional noise...from AC to DC transformer 144 and DC to DC converter 146” (Baum [0027]). This corresponds to using the electrical filter to prevent AC/DC converter noise from being coupled back onto the power line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include and use the electrical filter in the Campbell-based PLC lighting module system (as modified for claim 1) for the same reason taught by Baum—i.e., to substantially eliminate noise/interference caused by the AC/DC conversion circuitry so that such converter noise is not imposed back onto the power line (Baum [0027]).).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539) and further in view of Baum (US 20110164364 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 1 and 7. Claim 12 recites a method configured to perform the same operations/functions recited in apparatus claims 1 and 7. The limitations of claim 12 correspond directly to the operations/functions of claims 1 and 7 in method form, and the scope and content of the recited features are substantially the same as those addressed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539) and further in view of Baum (US 20110164364 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 1 and 7. Claim 17 recites an system configured to perform the same operations recited in claims 1 and 7. The limitations of claim 17 correspond directly to claims 1 and 7, and the scope and content of the recited features are substantially the same as those addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and 7.
Claims 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539) and Baum (US 20110164364 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 6, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the control signals center on a control frequency within a range of approximately 30 kHz to 800 kHz (Campbell teaches a PLC lighting control arrangement in which the master controller generates and superimposes powerline control signals onto the AC power distribution conductors for receipt by slave lighting units ([0024]–[0026], [0028]–[0029]). Campbell therefore teaches transmitting control signals over power conductors using a modulated communication scheme (e.g., FSK/DFSK/DPSK) ([0024]).
However, neither Campbell, Johansson, nor Baum in the portions provided expressly states that Campbell’s (or Johansson’s/Baum’s) control signals are centered on a carrier within 30 kHz to 800 kHz (e.g., Baum instead discusses example PLC ranges in the MHz) (Baum [0027]).
Applicant’s own disclosure describes that powerline communications are typically superimposed on power lines using carrier frequencies “between about 30 kHz and 800 kHz” (Applicant Spec. [0020]). This is a statement of conventional/typical PLC operation (i.e., AAPA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, when implementing Campbell’s PLC control signals over AC power conductors, to select and use a PLC control carrier centered within the conventional PLC carrier range of approximately 30 kHz to 800 kHz as described in Applicant’s specification (Applicant Spec. [0020]), as a predictable implementation detail for PLC signaling on AC power lines in a lighting control system (Campbell [0022]–[0026]).).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 1, wherein the powerline communication network is a first powerline communication network (Campbell teaches a PLC lighting control system in which a master controller superimposes lighting command outputs onto a power distribution system and slave lighting units receive/separate the PLC command signal from the power signal to control their lighting loads ([0022], [0024]–[0026], [0028]–[0029]). Campbell’s PLC-on-power-distribution arrangement corresponds to the recited first powerline communication network.), but does not expressly disclose a PLC control transponder is designed to bridge the control signals between the first powerline communication network and a second powerline communication network comprising a second set of AC lines and a second set of lighting modules
The additional limitation of a PLC control transponder bridging control signals between a first and second powerline communication network is taught as conventional/known practice in the instant disclosure, which describes that a system may include “one or more PLC control repeaters” and that “two systems… may be joined to share communications via a PLC transponder (e.g., a repeater) that links to multiple sets of AC power lines” (Instant Spec. [0022]). The instant disclosure further describes a first AC powerline network and a second AC powerline network and states that a “PLC control transponder bridges the two AC networks” and repeats control-message content from the first network onto the second network (Instant Spec. [0028]–[0033]), and also explains that such a transponder may include a first PLC modem coupled to one AC network, a second PLC modem coupled to another AC network, and a data communication link between the modems for relaying PLC commands between networks (Instant Spec. [0040]). This corresponds to the claimed PLC control transponder bridging control signals between a first PLC network and a second PLC network having its own AC lines and lighting modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate such a known PLC control transponder/repeater into the Campbell-based PLC lighting system (as modified for claim 1), to bridge PLC control signals between a first AC/PLC network and a second AC/PLC network with a second set of AC lines and lighting modules, because PLC repeaters/transponders are a recognized technique for extending/bridging PLC command distribution across separate powerline segments and sources (Instant Spec. [0022], [0028]–[0033], [0040]), yielding the predictable result of enabling control signaling to reach additional lighting modules on a second PLC network while maintaining the underlying PLC command architecture taught by Campbell ([0024]–[0026], [0028]).).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum and AAPA discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 8, wherein the first powerline communication network and the second powerline communication network are separated using a generator (As addressed for claim 8, the instant disclosure (admitted conventional practice) teaches a first AC powerline network and a second AC powerline network bridged by a PLC control transponder (Instant Spec. [0022], [0028]–[0033], [0040]). The instant disclosure further teaches that AC power for such networks may be provided by a generator: “AC power may be provided by a standard power distribution grid … Alternatively, AC power may be provided by a generator, for example” (Instant Spec. [0019]). The instant disclosure also describes that “two systems … may be joined to share communications via a PLC transponder …” and that “two [PLC] networks … are separated using a generator” in the bridging context (Instant Spec. [0022], [0028], [0040]), i.e., each AC network may be powered by a separate generator and have separate power lines (Instant Spec. [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the bridged first and second PLC networks (as in claim 8) such that the networks are separated using a generator (e.g., separate generator-supplied AC networks), because the use of separate generator-powered AC networks is expressly described as a known configuration for such PLC lighting deployments and yields the predictable result of providing independent power sources while still enabling PLC control signal bridging via the transponder (Instant Spec. [0019], [0022], [0028], [0040]).).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum and AAPA discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 8, wherein the PLC control transponder is coupled to the first powerline communication network using a first isolation transformer and the PLC control transponder is coupled to the second powerline communication network using a second isolation transformer (As addressed for claim 8, the instant disclosure (admitted conventional practice) teaches a PLC control transponder bridging a first and second AC powerline/PLC network. The instant disclosure expressly teaches that such a transponder has connections to both AC networks, e.g., via separate isolation transformers (Instant Spec. [0022], [0029]). The instant disclosure also teaches that PLC transmitters are coupled to AC power lines via an isolation transformer and that systems can include transponders/repeaters that link to multiple sets of AC power lines via separate isolation transformers (Instant Spec. [0022]). This is directly the limitation of claim 10. Johansson independently reinforces the use of isolation transformers for impressing and sampling PLC signals on power lines (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10, col 4 ln 3-31, col ln 27-47), providing further support that transformer-coupled PLC interfacing is a known and predictable implementation detail in PLC systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the PLC control transponder that bridges the first and second PLC networks (claim 8) to the first network using a first isolation transformer and to the second network using a second isolation transformer, because this exact two-transformer coupling arrangement is taught for such a transponder connection to two separate powerline networks (Instant Spec. [0022], [0029]) and is consistent with known PLC isolation-transformer coupling techniques (Johansson col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10, col ln 27-47).).
Claims 13-15, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539) and Baum (US 20110164364 A1) as applied to claim 12 or 17 above, and further in view of Cregg (US20060126617A1).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the powerline communication network is a first powerline communication network, further comprising: sending a first control message to the first powerline communication network using the PLC control transmitter and receiving the first control message using a lighting module of the one or more lighting modules (Campbell’s master controller constitutes the claimed PLC control transmitter sending a first control message over that network for receipt by a lighting module (Campbell [0024]–[0025]). Campbell discloses one or more LED fixture slave units 16 (lighting module(s)) coupled to the power distribution system to receive both the power signal and the superimposed control signals (Campbell [0022], [0024]-[0026], [0028])).
However, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum does not expressly disclose starting the timer associated with the lighting module; and repeating the first control message using the lighting module when the timer exceeds a predetermined threshold. Although, Johansson teaches that reception of an initializing/synchronizing control signal defines and synchronizes time intervals/timeslots used by devices, thereby evidencing that a receiving module begins timing in response to receiving a control message (Johansson col 1 ln 11-23, col 2 ln 56-col 3 ln 10, col 4 ln 32-47).
In an analogous art, Cregg teaches that devices on a shared medium (including a powerline) are peers that can act as repeaters and perform message retransmissions to improve robustness (Cregg Abstract, [0021], [0072]). Cregg further teaches that message repetition (retransmission) is governed by a timing protocol based on timeslots, and that a receiving device that is to repeat a message waits for protocol-defined timing and then retransmits the message in a subsequent timeslot (Cregg [0130]–[0134], [0137]–[0138]), and additionally teaches retry/repeat behavior based on a predetermined threshold (e.g., a maximum number of retries), where a device waits for an acknowledgement and, if not received, increments a retry counter (up to a default maximum) and sends the message again (Cregg [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Campbell’s lighting-module PLC network (timed/synchronized as taught by Johansson) to incorporate Cregg’s timed retransmission/retry protocol so that a lighting module, after receiving a control message and starting its timing per the timeslot protocol, repeats the control message when the timing/threshold condition is met, thereby improving message delivery reliability and extending effective communication range on noisy/attenuating powerline networks, which is the predictable result of adding controlled retransmissions/retries in such systems (Cregg Abstract, [0007], [0010], [0130]–[0134]).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum, and Cregg discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving the first control message by the PLC control transmitter as confirmation that the lighting module received the first control message (Cregg teaches that, for a point-to-point (“Direct”) message, the intended recipient responds by returning an Acknowledge message (ACK/NAK) to the initiating transmitter, and that the sender waits for and receives the acknowledgement as confirmation (i.e., “confirmed”) that the message was received (Cregg [0089]–[0090]; [0135]–[0136]). Cregg further teaches that, in composing an ACK/NAK, the receiving device swaps source/destination addresses and inserts status, and may echo the same command information in the acknowledgement (e.g., “respond with an ACK message containing the same two bytes in the Command fields… to indicate successful execution of the command”) (Cregg [0103]–[0104]). Thus, in the context of claim 13’s repeated first control message, it would have been obvious to have the PLC control transmitter receive a return communication corresponding to the first control message (e.g., an ACK that echoes the command/control content) as confirmation that the lighting module received the first control message, as taught by Cregg’s closed-loop acknowledgement protocol. It would have been obvious to implement this confirmation/acknowledgement behavior in the claim 13 method because it predictably improves reliability on noisy/attenuating shared media (including powerlines) by providing positive confirmation and enabling controlled retries/retransmissions when needed (Cregg [0010]; [0089]–[0090]; [0103]–[0104]).).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum, and Cregg discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: repeating the first control message to a second powerline communication network using a PLC control transponder (Cregg teaches bridging communications between two separate powerline phases (i.e., effectively two separate powerline segments/networks) using a device that relays messages between them. Specifically, Cregg explains that powerline signals on opposite phases are attenuated due to lack of direct circuit connection, and that devices capable of both powerline and RF communications automatically solve phase coupling by communicating via RF between devices located on opposite phases, thereby allowing messages to propagate between the powerline phases (i.e., from a first powerline network to a second powerline network) (Cregg [0064]). Cregg further teaches that any device can act as a master, slave, or repeater (relaying messages) (Cregg [0072]) and that devices repeat/retransmit messages according to a hop-limited protocol (Cregg [0095]–[0097]). Thus, Cregg teaches using an intermediate/repeater device (i.e., a “PLC control transponder”) to repeat a control message originating on a first powerline communication network to a second powerline communication network, as recited. It would have been obvious to implement this bridging/repeating behavior in the claim 13 method to improve reach and robustness across segmented/attenuated powerline domains, consistent with Cregg’s teachings that bridging between phases increases reliability and enables communication where direct powerline propagation is inadequate (Cregg [0064]; [0067]–[0071]).).
Regarding claim 22, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein a first module of the set of lighting modules is designed to resubmit the control signal to a second lighting module of the set of lighting modules based at least in part on an expiration of the at least one timer.
Cregg teaches that any device on the shared powerline medium can act as a master, slave, or repeater, and that devices retransmit (i.e., resubmit) received messages to other devices on the shared medium (Cregg [0021], [0067]–[0072], [0095]–[0097]). Cregg further teaches that retransmission is governed by a timing protocol: a receiving device that is to repeat a message waits for protocol-defined timing (a "timeslot") and then retransmits the message in a subsequent timeslot (Cregg [0130]–[0138]). The protocol-defined timing necessarily involves timer-based behavior: the receiving device waits for a defined period to elapse and then, upon expiration of that period, transmits the message to other devices on the medium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cregg's peer-to-peer timed retransmission behavior into the lighting modules of the Campbell/Johansson/Baum combination, such that a first lighting module, upon expiration of an internal timer associated with a received control signal, resubmits the control signal to other lighting modules (including a second lighting module) on the same PLC network. The motivation for doing so is expressly provided by Cregg: peer retransmission with controlled timing increases the effective range and robustness of communication on noisy or attenuated PLC networks by providing path diversity (Cregg [0067]–[0070]). Applying this teaching to Campbell's PLC lighting system predictably improves message delivery to lighting modules located at greater distances or behind signal impairments on the powerline.
Regarding claim 23, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum, and Cregg discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 22, wherein the first module resubmits the control signal until a number of acknowledgement (ACK) messages are received or until no non-acknowledgement (NACK) messages are received for a previous submission of the control signal (Cregg teaches a closed-loop acknowledgement-based retransmission protocol in which the sender retransmits a Direct message and, after transmission, waits for an Acknowledge message (ACK or NAK) from the recipient (Cregg [0089]–[0090]; [0135]–[0136]). Cregg further teaches that the sender retries the message up to a default maximum number of retries (e.g., five), and that the retry process is terminated when a satisfactory ACK is received (Cregg [0099]). Cregg also teaches that the receiving device returns a NAK to indicate failure (Cregg [0090], [0103]–[0104]); accordingly, the absence of NAKs over a sufficient retransmission window inherently indicates successful delivery to the recipients within range, providing an alternative termination condition for retransmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to terminate retransmission either upon receipt of a sufficient number of ACK messages or upon the absence of NACK messages for a previous submission, as taught by Cregg. The motivation for doing so is expressly provided by Cregg: closed-loop ACK/NAK-based retransmission improves reliability of communications on shared noisy media while limiting unnecessary network traffic (Cregg [0010]; [0089]–[0090]; [0099]). Selecting between ACK-based and NAK-based termination conditions is a routine implementation detail within the skill of the art, both being expressly disclosed termination signals in Cregg's protocol.).
Claims 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 20120133298 A1) in view of Johansson (US 5986539), Baum (US 20110164364 A1) and Cregg (US 20060126617 A1), and further in view of Hamilton (US 6392993 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum, and Cregg discloses the method of claim 13, but does not expressly further comprising: ignoring any control messages received during a period when the timer is running before exceeding the predefined threshold.
In an analogous art, Hamilton teaches using a suppression timer during which subsequently received message/control requests are ignored. Specifically, Hamilton states that any additional NAKs received by the sender for the same packet will be ignored for a predetermined period of time after retransmission of the packet (Hamilton col 3 ln 52 - col 4 ln 2). Hamilton further explains that a retransmission suppressor sets a suppression timer each time a packet is transmitted and that the same packet will not be retransmitted again until the suppression timer for that packet expires (Hamilton col 18 ln 35 -45). Consistent therewith, Hamilton describes checking whether “there is a suppression timer running for this packet” and, if so, “the NAK is ignored” (Hamilton col 18 ln 46-64). Thus, Hamilton discloses ignoring received control-type messages requesting action (e.g., retransmission requests/NAKs) during a period when a timer is running, i.e., before the timer expires (Hamilton col 3 ln 52 - col 4 ln 2, col 18 ln 35-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Campbell in view of Johansson, Baum, and Cregg to ignore received control messages while a timer is running (until a predefined threshold/time period elapses) as taught by Hamilton, in order to reduce traffic caused by repeated/duplicate messages and prevent flooding, while giving prior transmissions time to propagate before acting on additional requests (Hamilton col 2 ln 1 -23, col 3 ln 52 - col 4 ln 2, col 13 ln 8-43, col 18 ln 35-64).
Regarding claim 21, Campbell in view of Johansson and Baum discloses the aircraft field lighting system of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one timer includes a blackout timer and a repeat timer, wherein the blackout timer is associated with a blackout period and the repeat timer is associated with repeating a received command.
In an analogous art, Cregg teaches a retry timer/counter associated with retransmission of a message. Specifically, Cregg discloses that a device, after sending a direct message, waits for an acknowledgement and, if not received, increments a Retry Counter (up to a default maximum of five retries) and retransmits the message (Cregg [0099]; see also [0130]–[0138]). Cregg's retry/retransmission timer corresponds to the recited "repeat timer" associated with repeating a received command.
In a further analogous art, Hamilton teaches a suppression timer that, when running, causes received control-type messages to be ignored, stating that any additional NAKs received by the sender for the same packet will be ignored for a predetermined period of time after retransmission of the packet (Hamilton col 3 ln 52 – col 4 ln 2), and that the same packet will not be retransmitted again until the suppression timer for that packet expires (Hamilton col 18 ln 35–45). Hamilton's suppression timer corresponds to the recited "blackout timer" associated with a blackout period during which received messages are ignored.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate both a blackout timer as taught by Hamilton and a repeat timer as taught by Cregg into the lighting modules of the Campbell/Johansson/Baum combination, because doing so would predictably reduce duplicative retransmissions on a noisy PLC channel (Hamilton col 2 ln 1–23; col 18 ln 35–64) while also ensuring message delivery reliability through controlled retries (Cregg [0010], [0099]). Each timer performs its respective and well-understood function in the combination, yielding the predictable result of robust message handling on a shared PLC medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Applicant argues that the claims are patentably distinct from claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,536 because (i) claim 17 recites a timer as a separate component allegedly not in reference claim 1, and (ii) the timer-based retransmission and confirmation steps of claims 12–14 are allegedly not disclosed in the reference patent.
The arguments are not persuasive because the reference patent claims expressly recite the limitations Applicant contends are missing.
Reference claim 1 recites that "the digital controller of each lighting module is adapted to ignore, after receiving a first command from the PLC control transmitter, subsequent commands from the PLC control transmitter for a first period of time" — necessarily entailing timing functionality activated by message receipt. Whether labeled a "timer" element (instant claim 17) or controller functionality (reference claim 1) is not a patentable distinction.
Reference claim 3 recites that the digital controller is "adapted to retransmit, via the PLC circuitry of the lighting module and after a second period of time, content based on the first command from the PLC control transmitter" — corresponding to the timer-gated retransmission of instant claim 13. Reference claim 4 recites that the controller determines the second period "based on the first command," and the inherent receipt of the retransmitted content by the PLC control transmitter over the shared powerline provides the confirmation of instant claim 14.
Reference claim 1 further recites that "the AC powerline interface of each lighting module … comprises electrical filtering substantially blocking an absorption of signals in the first control signal band" — substantively identical to the corresponding limitation of instant claim 1. Reference claim 6 recites a PLC control transponder bridging first and second sets of AC powerlines, corresponding to instant claims 8 and 15; the generator-separation (claim 9) and dual-isolation-transformer (claim 10) limitations are obvious implementation details. Reference claim 7 recites the isolation-transformer coupling of the AC powerline interface.
The differences are accordingly labeling distinctions or obvious implementation details. See MPEP 804.
Applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) would overcome this rejection. The rejection is maintained.
35 USC § 103— Independent Claims 1, 12, and 17
Applicant argues that Baum's low-pass filter is "directly connected to a wall socket 156 and the AC to DC transformer 144 via a power cable" and that "no control signals are present on the line through the low pass filter 154."
This argument mischaracterizes Baum. Baum [0025] expressly states that "power cable 168 provides the high voltage AC electricity to low pass filter 154 and to power line modem 148." Baum [0026] further states that PLC data "is transferred from wall socket 156 to power cable 168, which provides the signal to low pass filter 154 and to power line modem 148." Power cable 168 is therefore the shared node carrying both the AC power signal and the PLC signal, and the low-pass filter sits between that node and the AC/DC converter — the structural arrangement recited in the claim. A low-pass filter at that position inherently attenuates the higher-frequency PLC band whether characterized as control-signal rejection or as converter-noise suppression.
Applicant further argues that the references are non-analogous and that none addresses an "aircraft field lighting system" or signal fidelity "over large geographic areas." This argument is not persuasive. Campbell, Johansson, and Baum are all directed to PLC over power-distribution conductors — the same field of endeavor — and Baum is reasonably pertinent to the problem of PLC coexistence with AC/DC conversion circuitry. The recitation "aircraft field lighting system" is a statement of intended use in the preamble and imparts no structural distinction (MPEP 2111.02), and the claims recite no cable-length, geographic-area, or signal-fidelity-over-distance limitation. Arguments directed to unclaimed features cannot rebut the prima facie case.
Motivation to combine is provided by Baum [0027], which expressly teaches that the line-side filter addresses converter-related interference on the shared powerline — the same rationale Applicant identifies at Spec. [0026] and [0042]. The rejection is maintained.
35 USC § 103— Claim 7
Applicant argues that Johansson's sync-pulse-defined timeslot protocol is bus-level timing rather than a per-module timer activated by message receipt.
Claim 7 recites only that the timer is "designed to activate in response to receiving a control signal message," without limiting the timer's purpose. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the slave's tracking of defined time intervals upon receipt of the master's sync (Johansson col 1 ln 11–23; col 2 ln 56–col 3 ln 10; col 4 ln 32–47) reads on the limitation. Cregg [0099], [0130]–[0138] (of record) provides additional support. The rejection is maintained.
Remaining Claims
Applicant offers no separate substantive argument for claims 2–6, 8–11, or 13–16. The rejections of those claims are maintained for the reasons given in the prior Office Action. Claims 18–20 are cancelled. New claims 21–23 are rejected as set forth in the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights