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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 05/29/25. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-13 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/25, 12/08/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-13 are 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.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparrow (EP 2615015).
Regarding Claim 1, Sparrow teaches a headlamp comprising: - a light source (Fig. 1: 5); - a power on/off push button (Fig. 1: 7) for switching on/off the headlamp; - a power module (Fig. 3: 110) for generating a current supply for said light source; - a control module (Fig. 5: 111) for adjusting the light intensity generated by said light source; and - an accelerometer (Fig. 5: 123) configured to provide, at regular intervals, data representing an acceleration of the headlamp along at least one horizontal axis X1 and one vertical axis Y1 ([0016]); wherein said control module is configured to store and digitally process the data representative of said acceleration ([0032]); characterized in that the control module is further configured:- to perform digital processing of said captured accelerometer data in order to detect a set of N>2 consecutive taps and, following said detection, to enter a battery life programming mode ([0033] “tapped laterally its body five times”); and- in said programming mode, following each new action on said push button ([0033] “by pressing the button switch 7”), to perform a circular scrolling of the display of said LED segments, each of said LED segments corresponding to a programming of one battery life unit ([0033] “this switches the circuitry on to the extent that the battery status LEDs 109 are switched ON to indicate the state of charge of the battery”).
Sparrow does not explicitly teach in Fig. 5 an M-segment display for displaying the battery charge status. However, [0027] teaches “an array of five battery-status red LEDs 109 are provided”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sparrow with the LEDs being a segment LED display since the LEDs array 109 are lit in segments to so the battery status.
Regarding Claim 3, Sparrow teaches the headlamp according to claim 1, wherein the exit from the programming mode is performed by detecting a new set of N>2 consecutive taps ([0038]; five taps with different actions to enter/exit different programming modes).
Regarding Claim 4, Sparrow teaches the headlamp according to claim 1, wherein M=5 (Fig. 4; 109) and N=4 ([0038] five taps; NOTE; it is obvious that the number can be change to 4 since 5 was arbitrary chosen to avoid unintentional activation of the lamp), and wherein said unit of battery life is the hour (Fig. 4: 109 can easily be set to indicate the battery status in hours).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparrow as applied to claim 1 in view of Economy (WO 2013003804).
Regarding Claim 2, Sparrow teaches the headlamp according to claim 1 except the exit from the programming mode is performed after a predetermined duration.
Economy is in the field of load control device (abstract) and teaches the controller exit from the programming mode is performed after a predetermined duration ([0059] “control device 120 may exit the programming mode after a prescribed timeout period in which the wireless control device receives no input commands from the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sparrow with control exit programming mode after a duration as taught by Economy in order to return to normal operating mode since staying in programming mode constantly is not desirable as the programming can be accidentally changed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparrow as applied to claim 1 in view of Recker (US 2010/0271802).
Regarding Claim 6, Sparrow teaches the headlamp according to claim 1 except a light sensor for capturing light from the environment of the wearer of the lamp and in which the control module is configured to control the brightness of the light source according to the information generated by the light sensor.
Recker is in the field of lighting (abstract) and teaches a light sensor for capturing light from the environment of the wearer of the lamp and in which the control module is configured to control the brightness of the light source according to the information generated by the light sensor ([0019] “LED light bulb may adjust the light intensity based on the ambient light level detected by a light sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sparrow with light sensor as taught by Recker in order to adjust the light intensity accordingly since modifying intensity according to available daylight can extend the life of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights