UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/713,616
`
`09/23/2017
`
`Shinichi AOKI
`
`NIIPP0195US
`
`9219
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOIS SELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`RIDDICK BLAKE CUTLER
`
`ART UNIT
`2884
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/16/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/713,616
`Examiner
`BLAKE RIDDICK
`
`Applicant(s)
`AOKletal.
`Art Unit
`2884
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 26 June 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—15 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 23 September 2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190909
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Request for Interview
`
`In view of the foregoing office action, it is respectfully submitted that if Applicant
`
`has any questions or concerns, the Examiner respectfully invites Applicant to contact
`
`the Examiner at the telephone number appearing below.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 26 June 2019 wherein: claims 1,
`
`13, and 14 are amended; claims 1-15 are pending.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is amended as follows:
`
`
`
`ea shits Sight simmer their smits white Eight and
`
`s mssmsirsrss iigght ssusss ihsé sshits sisssihssrss Eight” §
`
`wsssimgth is: s wsvssmggiii msgs si‘ imm EGG rim ts tits? hm. i
`
`at Esssi. she: sash.
`‘
`
`.
`“ , :hs nest-
`
`
`?&“a"§ §ig;hi st isss: hssiisiiy mississsirm sh sass iiish‘isiaiss s», the. whim fish; {is s
`
`:issss sh: sassss 9:: which has irssh grasses is pswssgsssamssgmsmx
`" r sham
`
`
`Claims 13 and 14 are similarly amended.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 3
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are
`
`moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the
`
`current rejection.
`
`The teachings of Budde (US 2010/0039804) are newly relied upon in this
`
`rejection for the newly amended claim limitations.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 4
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-
`
`structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed
`
`function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so
`
`that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 5
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this
`
`application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
`
`that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform
`
`the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“an optical component that focuses the white light and the near-infrared light” in
`
`claim 4;
`
`“a movable component that changes an emission direction of at least one of the
`
`white light and the near-infrared light
`
`wherein the movable component changes the
`
`emission direction of at least one of the white light and the near-infrared light to a
`
`direction in accordance with the information obtained by the communication unit” in
`
`claim 10;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 6
`
`“a communication unit configured to obtain information specifying the emission
`
`direction” in claim 10 and “wherein the communication unit obtains the position
`
`information received by the portable communication terminal” in claim 12.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the
`
`claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`The limitations identified above are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as
`
`corresponding to the following structures in Applicant’s specification:
`
`“optical component” in claim 4: a lens (Applicant’s specification, page 9, lines 24-
`
`25);
`
`“movable component” in claim 10: a control circuit and a motor for moving a
`
`lighting device emitting both the white and near-infrared light (Applicant’s specification,
`
`page 22, lines 8-14); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 7
`
`“communication unit” in claims 10 and 12: a CPU and a communication interface
`
`(Applicant’s specification, page 21, lines 7-8).
`
`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 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 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Vasilenko (US 2012/0100038) in view of Bafez‘z‘i (US 2010/0020536) and Budde
`
`(US 2010/0039804).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Vasilenko discloses a lighting system 1 that irradiates (via
`
`lamp 2) a fresh product (fresh produce within transparent tube 3) with light 4 (par.
`
`[0040]—[0041], fig. 1), the lighting system comprising: a white light source (white light
`
`LEDs) that emits white light (par. [0041]—[0042], fig. 2); and a near-infrared light source
`
`(IR LEDs; par. [0041]—[0042], fig. 2) that emits near-infrared light having at least one
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 8
`
`peak wavelength in a wavelength range of from 700 nm to 1100 nm, inclusive
`
`(wavelength of 940 nm to 950 nm, par. [0016]), the near-infrared light and the white light
`
`illuminating an area on a placement surface 3 on which the fresh produce is placed
`
`(par. [00401-[0042], fig. 1).
`
`Vasilenko further discloses the produce is illuminated by a combination of IR light
`
`and white light (par. [0016]) and an alternating arrangement of IR and white LEDs (par.
`
`[0041]-[0042] and fig. 1-2).
`
`Vasilenko does not expressly disclose the near-infrared light at least partially
`
`overlaps an area illuminated by the white light on the placement surface on which the
`
`fresh product is placed.
`
`Bafettidiscloses an LED array 102 including two different types of LEDs emitting
`
`different wavelength spectrums of light (par. [0039]), including IR (par. [0048]) and white
`
`(par. [0052]) light, wherein the different emitted light at least partially overlaps (the light
`
`emitted by two different types of LEDs are mixed together, par. [0051]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings of
`
`Bafeffi so that the near-infrared light at least partially overlaps an area illuminated by the
`
`white light on the placement surface on which the fresh product is placed.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Bafeffi
`
`of providing a desired wavelength spectrum of light (Bafetti, par. [0051]), particularly
`
`including the white light and IR light of Vasilenko at least partially overlapping on an
`
`area on the placement surface on which the fresh product is placed so that the colors of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 9
`
`the product are reflected correctly (using white light) and the life of freshness of the
`
`product is elongated (using IR light; Vasilenko, par. [0008]).
`
`Vasilenko modified does not expressly disclose on the placement surface on
`
`which the fresh product is placed, an area illuminated by the near-infrared light is larger
`
`than, and completely covers, the area illuminated by the white light.
`
`Budde discloses on a placement surface 18 on which a fresh product 17 is
`
`placed (par. [0028], fig. 2), an area (“the whole area being illuminated by the lighting
`
`element 20”, par. [0032]) illuminated by a first light 20 is larger than, and completely
`
`covers, an area (“only a small target area is illuminated with the light of the inspection
`
`element 30”, par. [0032]) illuminated by a second light 30 (par. [0028]-[0029], [0032], fig.
`
`2).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Budde so that on the placement surface on which the fresh product is placed, an area
`
`illuminated by the near-infrared light is larger than, and completely covers, the area
`
`illuminated by the white light.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Budde
`
`of avoiding the need to illuminate the whole area with both types of light (Budde, par.
`
`[0020D-
`
`Regarding claim 2, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 1, wherein the white light source is disposed in a first enclosure (top lamp 2,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 10
`
`Vasilenko, par. [0040], fig. 1) and the near-infrared light source is disposed in a second
`
`enclosure (bottom lamp 2, Vasilenko, par. [0040], fig. 1) different from the first enclosure
`
`(i.e., since white and IR LEDs are present in each of the two lamps 2, the white light
`
`sources and the near-infrared light sources are disposed in each of the first and second
`
`enclosures; Vasilenko, par. [0040], fig. 1;this feature includes the claimed limitation).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 1,wherein the white light source (white LEDs) and the near-infrared light source
`
`(IR LEDs) are disposed in a common enclosure 2 (Vasilenko, par. [0040]-[0042], fig. 1-
`
`2).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Vasilenko discloses a fresh product showcase 1 (display for
`
`sale of fresh produce, par. [0008], [0040]-[0041], fig. 1) comprising: a placement surface
`
`3 on which a fresh product is placed for display (par. [0008], [0040]-[0041], fig. 1); a
`
`lighting device 2 secured relative to the placement surface 3 (par. [0040]-[0041], fig. 1),
`
`the lighting device 2 comprising: a white light source (white light LEDs) that emits white
`
`light (par. [0041]-[0042], fig. 2); a near-infrared light source that emits near-infrared light
`
`(IR LEDs; par. [0041]-[0042], fig. 2) having at least one peak wavelength in a
`
`wavelength range of from 700 nm to 1100 nm, inclusive (wavelength of 940 nm to 950
`
`nm, par. [0016]); and wherein an area on the placement surface 3 is illuminated by the
`
`near-infrared light and the white light (par. [0040]-[0042], fig. 1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 11
`
`Vasilenko further discloses the produce is illuminated by a combination of IR light
`
`and white light (par. [0016]) and an alternating arrangement of IR and white LEDs (par.
`
`[0041]-[0042] and fig. 1-2).
`
`Vasilenko does not expressly disclose an area on the placement surface
`
`illuminated by the near-infrared light at least partially overlaps an area on the placement
`
`surface illuminated by the white light.
`
`Bafettidiscloses an LED array 102 including two different types of LEDs emitting
`
`different wavelength spectrums of light (par. [0039]), including IR (par. [0048]) and white
`
`(par. [0052]) light, wherein the different emitted light at least partially overlaps (the light
`
`emitted by two different types of LEDs are mixed together, par. [0051]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings of
`
`Bafeffi so that an area on the placement surface illuminated by the near-infrared light at
`
`least partially overlaps an area on the placement surface illuminated by the white light.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Bafeffi
`
`of providing a desired wavelength spectrum of light (Bafeffi, par. [0051]), particularly
`
`including the white light and IR light of Vasilenko at least partially overlapping on an
`
`area on the placement surface on which the fresh product is placed so that the colors of
`
`the product are reflected correctly (using white light) and the life of freshness of the
`
`product is elongated (using IR light; Vasilenko, par. [0008]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 12
`
`Vasilenko modified does not expressly disclose on the placement surface on
`
`which the fresh product is placed, the area illuminated by the near-infrared light is larger
`
`than, and completely covers, the area illuminated by the white light.
`
`Budde discloses on a placement surface 18 on which a fresh product 17 is
`
`placed (par. [0028], fig. 2), an area (“the whole area being illuminated by the lighting
`
`element 20”, par. [0032]) illuminated by a first light 20 is larger than, and completely
`
`covers, an area (“only a small target area is illuminated with the light of the inspection
`
`element 30”, par. [0032]) illuminated by a second light 30 (par. [0028]-[0029], [0032], fig.
`
`2).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Budde so that on the placement surface on which the fresh product is placed, the
`
`area illuminated by the near-infrared light is larger than, and completely covers, the area
`
`illuminated by the white light.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Budde
`
`of avoiding the need to illuminate the whole area with both types of light (Budde, par.
`
`[0020D-
`
`Claim 4 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilenko
`
`in view of Bafetti and Budde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`Sommers (US 2005/0265019).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 13
`
`Regarding claim 4, the claim is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as
`
`described above, with the claimed term “optical component” being a lens.
`
`Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to claim 1, further
`
`comprising: an optical component (casing of lamp 2; Vasilenko, par. [0040], fig. 1)
`
`focuses the white light and the near-infrared light (i.e., as seen in fig.
`
`1 of Vasilenko, the
`
`casing of lamp 2 focuses the light 4 on tube 3).
`
`Vasilenko modified does not expressly disclose the optical component is a lens.
`
`Sommers discloses a lighting system (par. [0036], fig. 1) comprising a lens 66
`
`that focuses light (directs light from LEDs toward a product; par. [0045]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Sommers so that the optical component is a lens.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in
`
`Sommers of directing light onto the products (Sommers, par. [0045]).
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Vasilenko in view of Bafefti and Budde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
`
`view of Benosman (WO 2017/216371) and Micheels (US 2013/0256534).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: a photosensor that detects at least light of
`
`wavelengths from 700 nm to 1100 nm, inclusive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 14
`
`Benosman discloses a device 10 for illuminating an object 12 (vegetable; page
`
`12, lines 13-14) with a controlled light intensity (page 5, lines 25-27, fig. 1) comprising a
`
`photosensor (photodiode 16; page 7, line 2).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Benosman to include a photosensor.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in
`
`Benosman of being able to detect abnormal operation (Benosman, page 8, lines 27-33).
`
`Vasilenko modified does not expressly disclose the photosensor detects at least
`
`light of wavelengths from 700 nm to 1100 nm, inclusive.
`
`Micheels discloses a photosensor (detector array) that detects at least light of
`
`wavelengths from 700 nm to 1100 nm, inclusive (Le, a detector array achieving a
`
`spectral resolution of 10 nm over the 700-1100 nm range; par. [0050]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Micheels so that the photosensor detects at least light of wavelengths from 700 nm to
`
`1100 nm, inclusive.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in
`
`Benosman of being able to detect abnormal operation (Benosman, page 8, lines 27-33;
`
`see above) in the infrared source of Vasilenko (Vasilenko, wavelength of 940 nm to 950
`
`nm, par. [0016]) by using a detector in combination with a light source emitting in the
`
`same wavelength range as disclosed by Micheels (Micheels, par. [0050]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 15
`
`Regarding claim 6, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 5, further comprising: a controller (20, Benosman, page 6, lines 30-31, fig. 1) that
`
`controls the white light source (the controller being adapted to control the state of each
`
`light source; Benosman, page 4, lines 1-2) and the photosensor (the controller being
`
`adapted to command the position of each reflector; the positions of the reflectors
`
`impacts the light sent to the photodiode; Benosman, page 3, lines 22-30; page 9, lines
`
`25-29), wherein the controller interrupts emission of light by the white light source and
`
`then causes the photosensor (photodiode) to detect light (in control configuration M2, no
`
`light produced by light source 14 is sent to photodiode 16; Benosman, page 7, lines 10-
`
`21; light still detected by photodiode 16 in control configuration M2 detecting abnormal
`
`operation; Benosman, page 9, lines 25-29).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the further
`
`teachings of Benosman.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in
`
`Benosman of detecting abnormal operation (Benosman, page 8, lines 27-33).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 5, further comprising: an optical filter (long pass filter 1420; Micheels, par. [0069])
`
`that blocks light less than 700 nm in wavelength (long pass filter 1420, in conjunction
`
`with short pass filter 1430, block light outside the wavelength range of 700-1100nm;
`
`Micheels, par. [0069]) which includes light less than 700 nm in wavelength, wherein the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 16
`
`optical filter 1420 is located on a side of the photosensor (Si detector of spectrometer
`
`140; Micheels, par. [0069]) that receives the white light (illumination; Micheels, par.
`
`[0069D.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the further
`
`teachings of Micheels.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in
`
`Micheels of avoiding overheating of the fresh product (sample in Micheels, par. [0069]).
`
`Claim 7 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilenko
`
`in view of Bafetti, Budde, Benosman, and Micheels as applied to claim 6 above, and
`
`further in view of Lax (US 2015/0292695).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 6, wherein the controller causes the white light source to emit light when the
`
`photosensor detects the near-infrared light (white light and near-infrared light are
`
`emitted under normal operation; Vasilenko, par. [0015]—[0016]; detecting abnormal
`
`operation with the photosensor is described in the rejection of claim 5 above in view of
`
`Benosman, page 8, lines 27-33).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the further
`
`teachings of Benosman.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 17
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to be able to emit white light and near-
`
`infrared light under the normal operation disclosed by Vasilenko (Vasilenko, par. [0015]-
`
`[0016]) while being able to detect abnormal operation as disclosed by Benosman
`
`(Benosman, page 8, lines 27-33).
`
`Vasilenko modified does not expressly disclose the controller causes the white
`
`light to blink when the photosensor does not detect the near-infrared light.
`
`Lax discloses causing a light source (indicator LED 46) to blink in response to
`
`detecting a failure (par. [0033]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Lax so that the controller causes the white light to blink when the photosensor does
`
`not detect the near-infrared light.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage disclosed in Lax
`
`of being able to differentiate between power outage (turning indicator light completely
`
`off) and system failure (blinking indicator light; Lax, par. [0033]).
`
`Claim 9 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilenko
`
`in view of Bafetti, Budde, Benosman, and Micheels as applied to claim 5 above, and
`
`further in view of Hannel (US 2011/0261355).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 18
`
`Regarding claim 9, Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to
`
`claim 5, but does not expressly disclose the photosensor is an image sensor included in
`
`a portable communication terminal.
`
`Examiner notes Applicant’s specification (page 29, lines 26-27) identifies a smart
`
`phone as an example of a portable communication terminal.
`
`Hannel discloses a system for near-infrared (NIR) measurements of produce
`
`using an image sensor (camera) in a portable communication terminal (smart phone;
`
`par. [0044]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the teachings
`
`of Hannel so that the photosensor is an image sensor included in a portable
`
`communication terminal.
`
`One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Hannel
`
`of permitting accurate NIR measurements using a portable device such as a smart
`
`phone (Hannel, par. [0044]).
`
`Claims 10-12 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Vasilenko in view of Bafetti and Budde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
`
`of Micheels and Lai (US 2013/0245988).
`
`Regarding claim 10, the claim is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as
`
`described above, with:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/713,616
`Art Unit: 2884
`
`Page 19
`
`the claimed term “movable component” a control circuit and a motor for moving a
`
`lighting device emitting both the white and near-infrared light; and
`
`the claimed term “communication unit” comprising a CPU and a communication
`
`interface.
`
`Vasilenko modified teaches the lighting system according to claim 1, further
`
`comprising a lighting device 2 emitting both the white and near-infrared light (via white
`
`and IR LEDs; Vasilenko, par. [0040]-[0042], fig. 1-2);
`
`a control circuit (LED sub-controller 131 including LED driver circuits 140 and
`
`141; Bafetti, par. [0064], fig. 1b);
`
`a communication unit, comprising a communication interface (input 110),
`
`configured to obtain information (indication; Bafetti, par. [0060], fig. 1b).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Vasilenko with the further
`
`t