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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 9 references itself instead of another claim (typographical error). Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of examination claim 9 will be treated as if it depended from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adejumo et al. (US 2019/0323702 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Adejumo teaches “a light head (100), comprising: a housing (102+104) including a main body (102+104; see paragraph 19, 102 and 104 can be the same continuous body) having an opening (covered by access panel 103), and an access panel (103) disposed over the opening (see Fig. 1) and mounted to the main body (see Fig. 1) so as to be openable to expose an interior of the housing (paragraph 20); a light source (114) integrated with the main body of the housing (see Fig. 1) and operable to shine a beam of light in a direction away from the housing (see Fig. 6b); an internet protocol (IP) camera (108) having a base fastened to the access panel (see Fig. 2), and at least one lens supported by the base as exposed to the exterior of the housing (see Fig. 2); and a power distribution system (700/118) disposed within the housing (paragraph 33; see Fig. 3) and wired for electrical connection to a main power supply line (722), and the power distribution system being configured to distribute at least some power for powering the light source and the IP camera independently (see Figs. 5) of one another from the main power supply line (paragraph 36)”.
With respect to claim 8: Adejumo teaches “a streetlight (see Figs. 6) comprising the light head as claimed in claim 1 (see above) and a light pole (‘utility pole’; Figs. 6) to which the light head is fixed (see Figs. 6)”.
With respect to claim 9: Adejumo teaches “the streetlight as claimed in claim 9 (see above), wherein the access panel and IP camera mounted thereto are disposed closer to the light pole than the light source (see Fig. 6b)”.
With respect to claim 10: Adejumo teaches “a light head (100), comprising: a housing (102+104); a light source integral (114) with the housing and positioned to shine a beam of light in a direction away from the housing (see Fig. 6b); an internet protocol (IP) camera (108) including a base mounted to the housing (see Fig. 2), and at least one lens supported by the base as exposed to the exterior of the housing (see Fig. 2); and a power distribution system (700/118) including a terminal block (130) disposed in the housing (paragraph 24) and dedicated for being electrically connected to a main power supply line (paragraph 23), the light source and the IP camera being electrically connected to the terminal block independently of each other (paragraphs 23, 24; see Figs. 5), and the power distribution system being configured to supply at least some power for powering the light source and the IP camera from the main power supply line through the terminal block (paragraphs 23, 24; see Figs. 5)”.
With respect to claim 11: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 10 (see above), wherein the housing includes a main body (102+104) having an opening (covered by access panel 103), and an access panel (103) disposed over the opening and to which the IP camera is fastened (see Fig. 2), the access panel being mounted to the main body so as to be openable to expose an interior of the housing (paragraph 20)”.
With respect to claim 12: Adejumo teaches “a streetlight (see Figs. 6) comprising the light head as claimed in claim 10 (see above) and a light pole to which the light head is fixed (see Figs. 6)”.
With respect to claim 13: Adejumo teaches “the streetlight as claimed in claim 12 (see above), and further comprising a photocell (111) disposed outside the housing of the light head (see Fig. 1), connected to the light source, and operative to control the light source to turn on and off depending upon an amount of ambient light sensed by the photocell (paragraph 20), and wherein the terminal block is configured to electrically connect the IP camera to the main power supply line (see Figs. 5) while bypassing the photocell (see Figs. 5)”.
With respect to claim 16: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 10 (see above), further comprising a network communication module disposed within the housing (110+120), electrically connected to the IP camera and the terminal block of the power distribution system (see Figs. 5), and operative to wirelessly transmit data produced from images captured by the IP camera (paragraphs 25-26)”.
With respect to claim 17: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 16 (see above), wherein the network communication module is electrically connected to the IP camera by a Power over Ethernet (PoE) cable such that image data output by the IP camera is transmitted along the PoE cable to the module (paragraph 26), and at least some power for powering the network communication module is supplied to the module by the power distribution system via the IP camera (paragraph 26)”.
With respect to claim 18: Adejumo teaches “a light head (100) comprising: a housing (102+104) including a main body (102+104) having an opening (covered by 103), and an access panel (103) disposed over the opening and mounted to the main body (see Fig. 2) so as to be openable to expose an interior of the housing a lighting system (paragraph 20); a light source (114) integrated with the main body of the housing and operable to shine a beam of light in a direction away from the housing (see Figs. 6); an internet protocol (IP) camera (108) having a base fastened to the access panel (see Fig. 2), and at least one lens supported by the base as exposed to the exterior of the housing (see Fig. 2); a power distribution system (700/118) including a terminal block (130) disposed in the housing and dedicated for being electrically connected to a main power supply line (724), the light source and the IP camera being electrically connected to the terminal block independently of each other (see Figs. 5), and the power distribution system being configured to supply at least some power for powering the light source and the IP camera from the main power supply line through the terminal block (paragraphs 23, 26); and a network communication module disposed within the housing (110+120), electrically connected to the IP camera and the terminal block of the power distribution system (see Figs. 5), and operative to wirelessly transmit data produced from images captured by the IP camera (paragraphs 25-26)”.
With respect to claim 19: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 18 (see above), wherein the power distribution system further comprises a photocell (111) connecting the light source to the terminal block and operative to control the light source to turn on and off depending upon an amount of ambient light sensed by the photocell (paragraph 20), and wherein the terminal block is configured to electrically connect the IP camera to the main power supply line while bypassing the photocell (see Figs. 5)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adejumo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0003682 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 1 (see above)”.
Adejumo does not specifically teach “wherein the base of the IP camera extends within the housing, the access panel has at least one hole therethrough, and the IP camera protrudes from the housing through the at least one hole in the access panel”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein the base (211+213) of the IP camera (210) extends within the housing (200), the access panel (280) has at least one hole (285) therethrough, and the IP camera protrudes from the housing through the at least one hole in the access panel (see Fig. 1)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by attaching the camera to the housing through a hole in the manner taught by Kim in order to mount the camera in a way that allows it to be replaced or repaired without needing to open the access panel (Kim paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 3: Adejumo teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 1 (see above)”.
Adejumo does not specifically teach “wherein the base of the IP camera is disposed entirely within the housing, the access panel has at least one hole therethrough, and each said at least one lens of the IP camera extends within a respective said hole in the access panel”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein the base of the IP camera is disposed entirely within the housing (see Fig. 1), the access panel has at least one hole therethrough (285), and each said at least one lens (212) of the IP camera extends within a respective said hole in the access panel (see Figs. 1, 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by attaching the camera to the housing through a hole in the manner taught by Kim in order to mount the camera in a way that allows it to be replaced or repaired without needing to open the access panel (Kim paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 4: Adejumo in view of Kim teaches “The light head as claimed in claim 3 (see above)”.
Adejumo does not specifically teach “wherein the base is box-shaped and rests against an inner surface of the access panel”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein the base is box-shaped (see Fig. 2) and rests against an inner surface of the access panel (paragraph 64)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by having the base rest against an inner surface of the access panel as taught by Kim so that the base can be bolted thereto (Kim paragraph 64).
With respect to claim 5: Adejuma in view of Kim teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 3 (see above)”.
Adejuma does not specifically teach “wherein each said at least one lens of the IP camera protrudes from a said hole in the access panel outside the housing”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein each said at least one lens of the IP camera protrudes from a said hole in the access panel outside the housing”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by attaching the camera to the housing through a hole in the manner taught by Kim in order to mount the camera in a way that allows it to be replaced or repaired without needing to open the access panel (Kim paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 6: Adejuma in view of Kim teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 3 (see above)”.
Adejuma does not specifically teach “wherein an outer shape of each said at least one hole in the access panel and an outer contour of a respective said at least one lens of the IP camera are substantially the same”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein an outer shape of each said at least one hole in the access panel and an outer contour of a respective said at least one lens of the IP camera are substantially the same”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by attaching the camera to the housing through a hole in the manner taught by Kim in order to mount the camera in a way that allows it to be replaced or repaired without needing to open the access panel (Kim paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 7: Adejuma in view of Kim teaches ““the light head as claimed in claim 6 (see above)”.
Adejuma does not specifically teach “wherein each said at least one lens of the IP camera protrudes from a said hole in the access panel outside the housing”.
However, Kim teaches “wherein each said at least one lens of the IP camera protrudes from a said hole in the access panel outside the housing”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by attaching the camera to the housing through a hole in the manner taught by Kim in order to mount the camera in a way that allows it to be replaced or repaired without needing to open the access panel (Kim paragraph 66).
Claims 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adejuma as applied to claims 10, 18 above, and further in view of Wilcox et al. (US 2008/0080162 A1).
With respect to claim 14: Adejuma teaches “the light head as claimed in claim 10 (see above), wherein the power distribution system further comprises a battery (paragraph 23) connecting the terminal block to the IP camera (paragraph 23)”.
Adejuma does not specifically teach a “smart battery charger, whereby the smart battery charger charges the smart battery with power distributed thereto from the terminal block when power is flowing from the main power supply line to the terminal block, and the battery powers the IP camera when no power is supplied to the terminal block via the main power supply line”.
However, Wilcox teaches a light head (10) having a smart battery (110) and smart battery charger (150), whereby the smart battery charger charges the smart battery with power distributed thereto from the terminal block when power is flowing from the main power supply line to the terminal block (paragraph 91), and the battery powers the IP camera when no power is supplied to the terminal block via the main power supply line (paragraph 89)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by including the battery charging system of Wilcox in order to provide backup power in the event of a power outage (Wilcox paragraph 89).
With respect to claim 15: Adejuma in view of Wilcox teaches “The light head as claimed in claim 14 (see above)”.
Adejuma further teaches “wherein the power distribution system further comprises a solar energy battery charger also connected to the battery to charge the battery with solar power (paragraph 23)”.
With respect to claim 20: Adejuma teaches “The light head as claimed in claim 18 (see above)”.
Adejuma further teaches “wherein the power distribution system further comprises a battery connecting the terminal block to the IP camera (paragraph 23)”.
Adejuma does not specifically teach a “smart battery charger, whereby the smart battery charger charges the smart battery with power distributed thereto from the terminal block when power is flowing from the main power supply line to the terminal block, and the battery powers the IP camera when no power is supplied to the terminal block via the main power supply line”.
However, Wilcox teaches a light head (10) having a smart battery (110) and smart battery charger (150), whereby the smart battery charger charges the smart battery with power distributed thereto from the terminal block when power is flowing from the main power supply line to the terminal block (paragraph 91), and the battery powers the IP camera when no power is supplied to the terminal block via the main power supply line (paragraph 89)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light head of Adejumo by including the battery charging system of Wilcox in order to provide backup power in the event of a power outage (Wilcox paragraph 89).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wassel et al. (US 2015/0260391 A1), which teaches an LED lighting platform.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights