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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include rectangular boxes without appropriate legends. For example, elements 710, 720, 730, 740 and 750 of FIG. 2, need appropriate legends. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes in a circuit are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o).
Suitable descriptive legends are required by the examiner as necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See 37 CFR 1.84(o).
Corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, phrase “a level of the intensity” should be change to –the level of the intensity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claim 15, a “computer program product” is being recited; however, a computer program would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software per se. This subject matter is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention (i.e. it is not a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter). Software is functional descriptive material and functional descriptive material is non-statutory subject matter.
Computer programs claimed as computer per se, i.e., the description or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes., as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-842 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Thus, the claim is interpreted to be software per se, and is rejected as being non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a lighting system comprising “in case the input interface determines a level of the intensity of the ambient light being above a second light intensity level, the control unit is configured to operate in a second mode wherein each control switch of the plurality of control switches is associated with an individual control of at least one property of the emitted light”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-13 are allowed by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a method comprising “determining if the determined level of the intensity of the emitted light is above a second light intensity level, and accordingly setting the control unit to operate in a second mode wherein each control switch of the plurality of control switches is associated with an individual control of at least one property of the emitted light”, as required in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-9612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m.-6 p.m..
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/SYED M KAISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights