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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,13, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,510,231. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claimed invention is somewhat broader recitation of the ’ 231 Patent, for example:
present claimed invention 19/436,769 (APP’769)
U.S. Patent No. 12,510,231(PAT’231)
Comments
Claim 1 and claim 2
Claim 13
Claim 1 of APP’769 fails to disclose the limitation:
“the gasket is configured to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating.”
However, this limitation is recited in claim 2 of APP’769.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of claim 1 APP’769 to incorporate the limitation of claim 2, as expressly taught by claim 13 of PAT’231, in order to provide an IP65 rated seal for the luminaire and thereby protect the internal components from dust and water ingress, enhancing the reliability and durability of the apparatus.
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 18
They are identical claims
Claim 7 and claim 8
Claim 1
Claim 7 of APP’769 fails to disclose the following limitation: “a weight of the cover plate approximately matches a weight of a camera module that includes the housing and a camera”.
However, claim 8 of APP’769 recite the missing limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 7 APP’769 to incorporate claim 8 as taught by claim 1, in order to provide effective attachment between the camera and the apparatus.
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
They are identical claims
Claims 15-18
Claim 13
Claim 15 of APP’769 fails to disclose the following limitation: “the mounting base is configured to support and hold the camera external to the luminaire when the mounting base is mounted to the external surface of the luminaire, and wherein the mounting base comprises a gasket configured to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating, wherein the gasket is configured to seal to a mating region on the external surface of the luminaire, and wherein the mating region comprises at least one of a recess that is configured to interface with the gasket, a microtextured surface, and a polished surface.”
However, claim 16-18 of APP’769 recite the missing limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 15 APP’769 to incorporate claims 16-18 as taught by claim 13 of PAT’231, in order to provide an IP65 rated seal for the luminaire and thereby protect the internal components from dust and water ingress, enhancing the reliability and durability of the apparatus.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnik et al. (US 2018/0292809) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2016/0097493).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11. Farnik et al. discloses a system, comprising: a luminaire (122/400, see Figs. 2 and 8, Para. 0029) comprising a head (e.g. 400, see Fig. 8, Para. 0052) configured for rotation relative to a fixed enclosure (e.g. base 403, see Fig. 8, Para. 0052) of the luminaire; a camera (124, see Figs. 2 and 8, Para. 0029).
However, Farnik et al. does not explicitly disclose the head comprises a camera access port and a housing configured to receive camera; wherein the housing is configured to be removably mounted to the camera access port of the luminaire; and a cover plate configured to be removably mounted to the luminaire head to cover the camera access port, wherein when the housing is mounted to the camera access port, the cover plate is removed from the luminaire head, as recited in claim 7; wherein the housing comprises a mounting base, and wherein the mounting base comprises a gasket to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating, as recited in claim 11.
Anderson et al. teaches a luminaire (light fixture 200, see Fig. 2, Para. 0032) that includes a camera access port (210, see Fig. 2, Para. 0034); a camera module (206, see Fig. 2) configured to be removably mounted to the camera access port of the luminaire; and a cover plate (202) configured to be removably mounted to the luminaire head to cover the camera access port, wherein the camera module (206) comprises a mounting base, and wherein the mounting base comprises a gasket (rubber gasket 216) to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating (see Para. 0028).
In an alternate embodiment Anderson et al. further teaches a cover (302) replacing the camera; therefore one skill in the art would understand that a weight of the cover plate approximately matches a weight of the camera module.
Therefore, in view of Anderson et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farnik et al. such that the camera is removably mounted to the camera access port, as suggested by Anderson et al. Such modification would merely involve making an integral structure separable into multiple components, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 13. Farnik et al. further discloses the luminaire comprises a signal connector (communication link 234, see Fig. 2, Para. 0029, 0030) and a power connector configured to be electrically coupled to corresponding signal and power connectors of a camera mounted in the housing through the camera access port.
(see Fig. 5, Para. 0042-0043).
However, Farnik et al. is silent with respect to the signal connector of the luminaire is electrically coupled to an output connector on a fixed enclosure of the luminaire.
Anderson et al. further teaches I/O port (208, see Fig. 2, Para. 0029), which may provide I/O signals (e.g., an operational power signal) to an auxiliary electronic component (e.g., camera 206).
Therefore, in view of Anderson et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Farnik et al.’s signal connector of the luminaire to be electrically coupled to an output connector on a fixed enclosure of the luminaire as a matter of using well known methods, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, the camera to be electrically coupled to the luminaire would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 14. The teachings of Farnik et al. have been discussed above.
However, Farnik et al. does not explicitly disclose the cover plate comprises a plurality of removable counterweight modules on an inner face of the cover plate.
Anderson et al. teaches the cover plate (202, see Fig. 2) configured to be removably mounted to the luminaire head to cover the camera access port (see Para. 0028-0029).
Therefore, in view of Anderson et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farnik et al. to include a cover plate as suggested by Anderson et al. and provide with a plurality of removable counterweight modules on an inner face of the cover plate so that the luminaire head can be adjusted in any position and will retain itself by means of its balancing counterweight, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide removable counterweight modules in order to balancing counterweight of the cover.
Regarding claims 15 and 16. Farnik et al. discloses luminaire (122/400, see Figs. 2 and 8, Para. 0029), comprising: a head (e.g. 400, see Fig. 8, Para. 0052) configured for rotation relative to a fixed enclosure of the luminaire and a camera module (124, see Figs. 2 and 8, Para. 0029)
However, Farnik et al. does not explicitly disclose comprising: a camera access port; and a cover plate configured to be mounted to the head to cover the camera access port, wherein the cover plate is removable to allow mounting of a housing for a camera to the head, wherein the cover plate is removed from the luminaire head when the housing is mounted to the camera access port; wherein the cover plate comprises a gasket configured to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating, as recited in claim 16.
Anderson et al. teaches a luminaire (light fixture 200, see Fig. 2, Para. 0032) that includes a camera access port (210, see Fig. 2, Para. 0034); a camera module (206, see Fig. 2) configured to be removably mounted to the camera access port of the luminaire; and a cover plate (202) configured to be removably mounted to the luminaire head to cover the camera access port, wherein the camera module (206) comprises a mounting base, and wherein the mounting base comprises a gasket (rubber gasket 216) to seal the luminaire to an IP65 rating (see Para. 0028).
In an alternate embodiment Anderson et al. further teaches a cover (302) replacing the camera; therefore one skill in the art would understand that a weight of the cover plate approximately matches a weight of the camera module.
Therefore, in view of Anderson et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farnik et al. such that the camera is removably mounted to the camera access port, as suggested by Anderson et al. Such modification would merely involve making an integral structure separable into multiple components, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 19. The teachings of Farnik et al. have been discussed above.
However, Farnik et al. does not explicitly disclose the cover plate comprises a plurality of removable counterweight modules on an inner face of the cover plate.
Anderson et al. teaches the cover plate (202, see Fig. 2) configured to be removably mounted to the luminaire head to cover the camera access port (see Para. 0028-0029).
Therefore, in view of Anderson et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farnik et al. to include a cover plate as suggested by Anderson et al. and provide with a plurality of removable counterweight modules on an inner face of the cover plate so that the luminaire head can be adjusted in any position and will retain itself by means of its balancing counterweight, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide removable counterweight modules in order to balancing counterweight of the cover.
Regarding claim 20. Farnik et al. further discloses comprising: a first sensor (e.g. one or more sensors, see Para. 0043) configured to interact with a corresponding second sensor of the housing when the housing is coupled to the luminaire, wherein the first sensor comprises an electromechanical sensor, a magnetic sensor, or an optical sensor; and a control system (500) coupled to the first sensor, wherein the control system is configured to generate a signal that indicates that the housing is coupled to the luminaire based on the first sensor interacting with the second sensor (see Para. 0032, 0043, 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable upon timely filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the independent claim 1 includes the allowable subject matter of the U.S. Patent No. 12,510,231(PAT’231), spesfically “the gasket is configured to seal to a mating region on the external surface of the luminaire, and wherein the mating region comprises at least one of a recess that is configured to interface with the gasket, a microtextured surface, and a polished surface.” (Please see reasons of allowance of PAT’231).
Claims 10 and 12 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. The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest “the gasket is configured to seal to a mating region on the external surface of the luminaire, and wherein the mating region comprises at least one of a recess that is configured to interface with the gasket, a microtextured surface, and a polished surface.”
Claim 8 is 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. The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest “a weight of the cover plate approximately matches a weight of a camera module that includes the housing and a camera.”
Claims 17 and 18 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. The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest “wherein the head comprises a mating region that surrounds the camera access port, and wherein the mating region is configured to interface with either a) the gasket of the cover plate to provide the IP65 rating when the cover plate is mounted to the head, or b) a gasket of a mounting base of the housing configured to provide the IP65 rating when the housing is mounted to the head” and “wherein the mating region comprises at least one of a recess that is configured to interface with the gasket, a microtextured surface, and a polished surface.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao (US 2021/0095843) discloses a circular counterweight member (5) is placed at the middles of the annular protrusions (9) on the inner bottom surface of the back cover (3); Chan (US 5,001,617) discloses a lamp (16) comprises a circular sector-like base (12) and an arm (14) attached to the base and the arm is attached to a counterweight (20); STRÖLIN (US 2021/0388969) discloses a lamp housing (1), a closure element (5), and a support (8) formed separately from the housing body (4), by means of which support a force introduced via the closure element (5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights