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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the occupancy sensor” has not been introduced in claim 10. Claim 8 will be best understood to be dependent on claim 7.
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) 1-6, 11-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Martin, Jr. (US 2010/0296298 Hereinafter Martin) optionally in view of Faloon et al. (US 5575552 Hereinafter Faloon).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a mirror assembly comprising:
a mirrored surface (mirror 12, Fig. 5);
at least one frosted edge (mirror treatment, paragraphs 0032 and 0033);
a Fresnel lens (the angled/beveled optical surface itself performs the light-directing/refracting function of a Fresnel-type optic; alternatively, the beveled edge is the optical element that redirects the primary light path); and
a light source (LED lighting strip 14) configured to generate light, wherein the Fresnel lens (beveled optical edge) is configured to refract a primary light path of the generated light and the refracted light travels through the at least one frosted edge (Paragraph 0033 the bevel angle is specifically chosen so light passes through the edge and focuses toward a user/subject in front of the mirror).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a Fresnel lens.
Faloon teaches using a Fresnel lens (40, Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the emission surface of Martin to include the Fresnel lens of Faloon, in order to provide a desired emission as needed for a given application and to provide a well-known alternative.
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses the Fresnel lens (beveled optical edge) is configured to refract the primary light path of the generated light toward a center of the mirrored surface (Fig. 6 the bevel is angled to focus light onto a subject standing in front of / toward the center of the mirror at typical use distances).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a Fresnel lens.
Faloon teaches using a Fresnel lens (40, Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3, additionally the Fresnel lenses are taught to be diffusing which would scatter light in all directions).
Regarding claim 3, Martin fails to teach the primary light path being generated away from a center of the mirrored surface.
Faloon teaches the Fresnel lens is configured to refract the primary light path of the generated light away from a center of the mirrored surface (Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3, additionally the Fresnel lenses are taught to be diffusing which would scatter light in all directions).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the Fresnel lens (beveled optical edge) abuts the at least one frosted edge (the bevel is the edge itself through which light exits; light source is positioned adjacent/abutting the rear of the beveled edge).
Faloon teaches using a Fresnel lens (40, Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses the at least one frosted edge includes one or more frosted edges disposed along an entire perimeter of the mirrored surface or along opposite sides (Paragraph 0033, beveled areas on at least two opposite sides; full-perimeter embodiments are also contemplated).
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses the light source comprises a plurality of rows of light emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed along the at least one frosted edge (LED lighting strip 14 positioned adjacent the beveled edge(s); multiple LEDs along the length as well as multiple sides of the perimeter, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches the illuminated input device is configured to illuminate at least one of a faucet (shown in Fig. 1) disposed below the mirror assembly and a basin (shown in Fig. 1) disposed below the mirror assembly.
Regarding claim 12 and 19, Martin teaches a battery (batteries, Paragraph 0027) configured to supply power to the light source (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Martin discloses a housing disposed behind the at least one frosted edge including the light source or the fresnel lens (framing/housing 26 that retains the LED strip behind the beveled edge; paragraphs 0028).
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses a mirror assembly comprising: a mirrored surface (12, Fig. 5);
a pair of frosted edges (Paragraph 0033) disposed along opposite sides of the mirrored surface (beveled edges on opposite sides);
a pair of fresnel lenses (pair of angled/beveled optical edges, Fig. 5), a respective one of the pair of fresnel lenses disposed along each of the pair of frosted edges (Paragraph 0033); and
at least one light source (LED strip(s)) configured to generate light, wherein the pair of fresnel lenses are configured to refract a primary light path of the generated light toward a center of the mirrored surface, the refracted light traveling through the pair of frosted edges (Abstract; paragraphs 0033, Fig. 6).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a Fresnel lens.
Faloon teaches using a Fresnel lens (40, Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have modified the emission surface of Martin to include the Fresnel lens of Faloon, in order to provide a desired emission as needed for a given application and to provide a well known alternative.
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses a respective one of the pair of fresnel lenses abuts each of the pair of frosted edges (as above, Paragraph 0033).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a Fresnel lens.
Faloon teaches using a Fresnel lens (40, Column 4 lines 54-60, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Martin discloses the light source comprises a plurality of rows of light emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed along the pair of frosted edges (Figs. 1-3 show several rows and columns).
Regarding claim 17, Martin discloses at least one housing disposed behind the pair of frosted edges, the at least one housing including the pair of fresnel lenses and the at least one light source (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Martin discloses a method of illuminating a user of a lighted mirror, the method comprising:
generating, by a light source (14, fig. 5), light; and
refracting (Fig. 5), by a fresnel lens (12a, Paragraph 0034), the light toward a center of the lighted mirror (Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Martin, Jr. (US 2010/0296298 Hereinafter Martin) optionally in view of Faloon et al. (US 5575552 Hereinafter Faloon) further in view of Yang et al. (US 9897306 Hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses an occupancy sensor (motion sensor, Paragraph 0034) configured to collect occupancy data; and
a processor configured to analyze the occupancy data and control the light source based at least in part on the occupancy data (specifically the light is being turned on by the motion sensor which is where the processing is happening).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a processor.
Yang teaches a processor (Processor; Column 3, lines 22-34) configured to analyze the occupancy data (motion sensor; Column 3, lines 22-34) and control the light source based at least in part on the occupancy data (Column 3, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the processor of Yang to the lighting device of Martin, in order to provide an explicitly teaching for a processor which controls the lighting device based on motion sensor as well as other inputs.
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses the occupancy sensor is disposed behind the mirrored surface (specifically everything other than the switch and cord are behind the mirror, Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Martin discloses a user input device (30, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0031); and
a processor configured to receive a user control signal from the user input device and control the light source to increase an illuminance of the light generated by the light source for a predetermined period of time in response to the user control signal (Paragraph 0031, specifically day time and night time).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a processor.
Yang teaches a processor (Processor; which takes inputs and controls the light; Column 22, lines 26-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the processor of Yang to the lighting device of Martin, in order to provide an explicitly teaching for a processor which controls the lighting device based on inputs (Column 22, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 10, Martin teaches an illuminated input device (the user, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0034); and
a processor configured to receive a user control signal from the illuminated input device and control the light source based at least in part on the user control signal (specifically the person standing there is being illuminated and the light source turns on because of that, Paragraph 0034).
Martin could be considered to fail to explicitly teach a processor.
Yang teaches a processor (Processor; which takes inputs and controls the light; Column 22, lines 13-36) with sensors to detect an illuminated user to keep the light source on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the processor of Yang to the lighting device of Martin, in order to provide an explicitly teaching for a processor which controls the lighting device based on motion sensor as well as other inputs.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nordquist (US 2313838) teaches a mirror with light and lenses. Ockerse et al. (US 2005/0024729) and Teramoto et al. (US 8240898) teach a light with a Fresnel lens with a mirror.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, 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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights