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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered. No claims have been amended. Claims 2-21 have been cancelled. Claims 22-30 have been added. Claims 22-30 are still pending in this application, with claims 22-24 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation recites: “...calculating a first value serving for a length between said fixture and said subject as a product of said arbitrary value and a first said angle of elevation, calculating a ratio between said first value serving for a length and a second value serving for a length, said second value a product of said arbitrary value and said second angle of elevation, adjusting said mechanism responsive to said ratio such that the absolute value of said parameter at a subject resulting from said second angle of elevation is substantially the same as said absolute value of said parameter at a subject resulting from said first angle of elevation...,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While Applicant has cited paragraph [0100] in support of the above-cited claim limitation, no such particulars are defined by said paragraph, nor by any other paragraph in the disclosure, specifically as they relate to a method involving the products of arbitrary values and ratios as presently claimed. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farnik et al. (US 2018/0292809 A1, herein referred to as: Farnik).
Regarding claim 22, Farnik discloses an apparatus suitable for lighting subjects at different distances (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]), comprising: a light source (a light source of any of the luminaries), said light source having a luminous output (each of the luminaries described as being luminaires have a luminous output, as noted in the corresponding description of embodiments), an optical system (the internal optical components of a given luminaire), said optical system forming from said luminous output a beam and having a mechanism for adjusting at least one parameter of said beam (e.g., “brightness, focus, beam size, and/or color” paragraph [0048]), a beam directing mechanism (a tilt/pan mount, of any of the luminaires of the embodiments of Figs. 2-16B) for changing the angles of azimuth and elevation of said beam to light said subjects at different distances (as shown in Figs. 2-16B), the absolute value of said parameter different at each such different distance as a consequence of said difference in distance (this is inherent to a change in beam size as a given luminaire is tilted at a different angle, e.g., see Figs. 10-11), the improvement wherein said apparatus is capable of automatically maintaining substantially the same said absolute value of said at least one parameter at said different distances without determining actual said distance by calculating the relative difference in distances produced by said changes in elevation and applying an appropriate correction to said beam with said mechanism (as described in paragraphs [0023]-[0098], e.g. paragraphs [0065]-[0070]. Specifically, the spot sizes, intensity, color, focus, etc. can be adjusted at given positions, and then automatically adjusted by calculating the relative difference in distances produced by said changes in elevation in relation to a given luminaire 1022 or a manually controlled follow-spot, apply the corrections to the beam parameters based on the beam characteristics at various physical calibration setpoints).
Regarding claim 23, Farnik discloses a method for compensating a beam parameter of a fixture capable of lighting subjects at different distances for the effect upon the absolute value of said parameter at said subjects as a consequence of said different distances without determining the actual said distances (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]), a fixture comprising: a light source (each of the luminaires of Figs. 2-16B utilized for stage lighting comprises a light source), said light source having a luminous output (each of said luminaires utilized for stage lighting in Figs. 2-16B forms a luminous output), an optical system (the internal optics of each said luminaire), said optical system forming from said luminous output a beam and having a mechanism for adjusting at least one parameter of said beam (e.g., “brightness, focus, beam size, and/or color” paragraph [0048]), a beam directing mechanism (a tilt/pan mount of a respective luminaire) for changing the angles of azimuth and elevation of said beam to light said subjects at said different distances (as shown in Figs. 2-16B), the method comprising: assigning an arbitrary value to the height of said fixture above said subject (above the subject or performance area, as shown in Figs. 2-16B), said value not intentionally the actual said height (the height need not be the actual height of the luminaire, as the controller records tilt and pan information of the manually aimed follow-spot or automated control luminaire 1022, and then calculates relative tilt/pan instructions for the remaining luminaires relative to said manual or automated control positions), calculating a first value serving for a length between said fixture and said subject as a product of said arbitrary value and a first said angle of elevation (e.g., the height may serve as an arbitrary value, as the height for a given fixture does not or need not change during the performance), calculating a ratio between said first value serving for a length and a second value serving for a length (such a comparison can be made two performance area positions for the same given fixture), said second value a product of said arbitrary value and said second angle of elevation (such a second value can be made two performance area positions for the same given fixture, with the second value relating to the second same second fixture height), adjusting said mechanism responsive to said ratio such that the absolute value of said parameter at a subject resulting from said second angle of elevation is substantially the same as said absolute value of said parameter at a subject resulting from said first angle of elevation (e.g., to have the beam size, intensity, color, or focus remain the same after adjustment from one position to the other, as noted in paragraphs [0023]-[0098], e.g. paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 24, Farnik discloses an apparatus suitable for lighting subjects at different distances (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]), comprising: a light source (each of the luminaires of Figs. 2-16B utilized for stage lighting have a light source), said light source having a luminous output (each of said luminaires of Figs. 2-16B utilized for stage lighting have a luminous output, as shown in Figs. 2-16B), an optical system (the internal optical components of the luminaires of Figs. 2-16B), said optical system forming from said luminous output a beam and having a mechanism for adjusting at least one parameter of said beam (e.g., “brightness, focus, beam size, and/or color” paragraph [0048]), a beam directing mechanism (a tilt/pan mount for the given luminaire) for changing the angles of azimuth and elevation of said beam to light said subjects at different distances (as shown in Figs. 2-16B), the absolute value of said parameter different at each such different distance as a consequence of said distance (various parameters such as spot size, intensity, color, or focus will vary at different positions in the performance area inherently without adjustment), the improvement wherein said apparatus is capable of automatically producing a specified absolute value of said at least one parameter at a subject distance without 3D modeling by determining from the actual height of said optical system above said subject and said angle of elevation the actual said distance to said subject and adjusting said parameter accordingly with said mechanism (as noted in paragraphs [0023]-[0098], e.g. paragraphs [0065]-[0070]. Specifically, the description outlines calibrating said absolute parameter for a single lamp or group thereof, by determining from the actual height of said optical system above said subject and said angle of elevation the actual said distance to said subject and adjusting said parameter accordingly with said mechanism, however, the height need not be utilized as the adjustments to the luminaires can be made simply by tilt/pan instructions for each respective luminaire. Thus, after the calibration is complete, the device is automatically capable of performing the above-recited limitation for said calibrated luminaires for the given calibrated positions in the performance area. The 3D model is used to translate said calibrated information to automated control based on calibrated data. However, the model is not needed to perform the claimed limitation for manually calibrated setpoints).
Regarding claim 25, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is the angular spread of said beam and the size of said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g. paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 26, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is the intensity of said beam and the light level in said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g., paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 27, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is focus and the edge of said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g. paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 28, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is the angular spread of said beam and the size of said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g. paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 29, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is the intensity of said beam and the light level in said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g., paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 30, Farnik discloses (Figs. 2-16B, paragraphs [0003]-[0098]) said adjustment is focus and the edge of said beam at said different distances is maintained (e.g. paragraphs [0033], [0062], and paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Farnik failed to disclose the features of claim 22, pages 7-8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the citation made by Applicant to paragraph [0063] of Farnik is merely one of several disclosed operating models outlined in the Farnik reference for controlling characteristics of the output beam for each luminaire at a given position in the performance area. However, as noted in paragraphs [0065]-[0070] of Farnik, the adjustments are calibrated for given control setpoints based on tilt/pan positions of the luminaires at a given position above the performance area (e.g., see Figs. 10-11), and the specific optical characteristic of the beam (e.g., intensity, beam size, color, focus) desired at each given position. The parameters of the beams are corrected at given positions and can be made to maintain constant features such as beam size, intensity, color and focus between each position. Thus, no actual distance is determined, nor need be determined, for the method outlined in paragraphs [0065]-[0070]. Therefore, Farnik reasonably discloses the above-cited claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Farnik fails to disclose the features of claim 23, pages 9-12 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, and firstly, no such method is explicitly recited in paragraph [0100] of the instant disclosure. Furthermore, as noted above, the adjustments are calibrated for given control setpoints based on tilt/pan positions of the luminaires at a given position above the performance area (e.g., see Figs. 10-11), and the specific optical characteristic of the beam (e.g., intensity, beam size, color, focus) desired at each given position in the performance area. The parameters of the beams are corrected at given positions and can be made to maintain constant features such as beam size, intensity, color and focus between each position. Thus, no actual distance or height is determined, nor need be determined, for the method outlined in paragraphs [0065]-[0070]. Therefore, Farnik reasonably discloses the above-cited claim limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Farnik failed to disclose the features of claim 24, pages 12-13 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection above, the device need not require a 3D model to perform the claimed function by manually calibrating the device as outlined in paragraphs [0065]-[0070]. Thus the device can operate based on such manual calibration without a 3D model, or utilize said calibration data with a 3D model, as outlined in paragraphs [0065]-[0075]. Therefore, the device of Farnik discloses the above-cited claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875