DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication dated 1/28/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13, 15-20, 43-44 and 48-49 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 43-44 are independent.
Claims 3, 12, 14, 21-42 and 45-47 are previously canceled.
Claims 48 and 49 are newly added.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 43, and 44 are newly amended.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 4-5, 15, 16, 20, 43 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer; Erica L. et al. (hereinafter Clymer – US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin; Sandip A. et al. (hereinafter Amin – US 6922816 B1) and Morgan; Frederick M. et al. (hereinafter Morgan – US 20060076908 A1).
As per independent claim 1, Clymer teaches A method comprising:
displaying a graphical user interface (e.g., control interface 708) that enables configuration of a lighting control device configured to control a corresponding lighting load, (Fig. 6D:708 and ¶ 141, “the control application may display the control interface 708 shown in FIG. 6D (in this example, the lights [loads] are controlled as one to a common state).” A control system for the method includes one or more lighting loads corresponding to the respective lighting control devices, ¶ 208 )
wherein displaying the graphical user interface further comprises displaying a lighting intensity bar within a predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the lighting intensity bar comprises lighting intensity values for configuring a lighting intensity of the lighting load; (Fig. 6D:710 and ¶ 141, lighting intensity adjustments using movable/slide-able actuator 710 that slides along a track [a lighting intensity bar] represented at the center of interface 708 [displaying a lighting intensity bar within a predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the lighting intensity bar comprises lighting intensity values],)
[…];
and wherein the lighting intensity bar is displayed with a control indicator indicating a current lighting intensity value of the lighting load; (the actuator indicates the current state of light intensity and is display within the track [control indicator], ¶ 141 and fig 6D.)
[…];
receiving a first input from the user via the lighting intensity bar displayed in [a] resolution state, wherein the first input from the user indicates a first distance to move the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface; (the actuator is moved by a user [user input] along the vertical track to select the lighting intensity, ¶ 141 and fig. 6D. the display of bar and movable/slide-able actuator 710 is necessarily at a resolution state, because GUIs are always rendered at a specific resolution, even if the user cannot change it. Digital screens are made of a fixed, physical grid of dots (pixels). A GUI must render at a specific scale or resolution so the computer knows exactly how many of those physical dots to use for buttons and text)
determining, based on the first distance to move the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar displayed in the […] resolution state, a first updated current lighting intensity value; (the application detects movement of the actuator by a user, and updates the position of the actuator accordingly, ¶¶ 28 and 141. A movement implies a distance along the track in a given resolution state)
transmitting one or more first messages to control the current lighting intensity of the lighting load to the first updated current lighting intensity value […] as the control indicator moves within […] the lighting intensity bar; (¶¶ 28 and 141, controlling lights using interface 708 by displacement of actuator 710; also see ¶ 33. the load control system is controlled via graphical user interfaces by communicating via communications network “messages” [first messages] to the load control system, see at least Abstract and ¶¶ 10,27-29, 31-32 and 34-38)
[…].
Clymer further teaches that the value of the intensity of the lights being controlled (raised/lowered), see ¶ 141, is in percentages [percent change]. E.g., ¶ 33 recites “increase or decrease the intensity of the receptive lighting load from a minimum intensity (e.g., approximately 1%) to a maximum intensity (e.g., approximately 100%)”, and ¶ 215 recites “pane 1760 may include an actuator 1764 (here a slide control and selectable buttons) that allows a user to set the dimming level the Vanity Lights should go to (e.g., a range from “off” to 100% “on”)”, also see fig. 9F. Clymer also teaches that control is performed using touch inputs, e.g., via a touch sensitive pad (see at least ¶¶ 120 and 162 and fig. 10).
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Amin teaches/suggests
receiving an indication from a user to enter a fine-tuning mode and change the lighting intensity bar to a first resolution state of a plurality of resolution states, (zoom control button allows adjustments [plurality] to a scale [resolution states] for a slider bar, Abstract and figs 11-13. a more precise [fine-tuning mode] or coarse adjustments of value are possible in different scales, Abstract and col 7:63-8:8).
wherein each resolution state of the plurality of resolution states enables a different percentage change of light intensity adjustment for the lighting load (adjustments are enabled at different magnitudes/ranges for the different scales, see figs 11-13. NOTE: that herein Amin, in view of Clymer, at least suggest that the values are lighting intensity, and percentages, as will be explained in more details below.)
receiving, during operation of the fine-tuning mode, an indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to a second resolution state of the plurality of resolution states; (interaction with a zoom control button allows adjustment to a scale [first resolution state to a second resolution state] for a displayed slider bar, Abstract, and col 2:16-21 and fig. 10)
that the first input is received in the “first” resolution state (Amin teaches a multi-scale slider interface featuring a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
determining, based on the indication to enter the fine-tuning mode and to change the lighting intensity bar to the first resolution state:
a first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are above a lighting intensity value representing the current lighting intensity value of the lighting load; (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
and a second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are below the current lighting intensity value of the lighting load; (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
displaying a first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar within the predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface is defined by the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values above the current lighting intensity value and defined by the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values below the current lighting intensity value, and wherein the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar is initially displayed with the control indicator indicating the current lighting intensity value between the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values and the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar in the first resolution state (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
that the control indicator moves within “the first zoomed-in sub-portion of” the lighting intensity bar (Amin teaches a multi-scale slider interface featuring a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
determining, based on the indication to change the lighting intensity bar to the second resolution state during the operation of the fine-tuning mode: (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
a third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are above the first updated current lighting intensity value; (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
and a fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are below the first updated current lighting intensity value (a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
displaying a second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar previously displayed in the first resolution state in the second resolution state within the predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface is defined by the third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values above the first updated current lighting intensity value and defined by the fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values below the first updated current lighting intensity value, and wherein the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar is initially displayed with the control indicator indicating the first updated lighting intensity value between the third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values and the fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values the second resolution state (interaction with a zoom control button allows adjustment to a scale [first resolution state to a second resolution state] for a displayed slider bar, Abstract and fig. 10. The zooming operation results in displaying the slider bar in the new scale, figs. 10-13. the current value of control button 1000 is represented between the displayed range/sub-range in the different resolutions, figs. 11-13 and col 8:9-24. a zoom control that activates a fine-tuning mode to rescale a bar, see Abstract and figs 10-13. When zooming, the system displays a sub-portions of values above and below the current setting, see col 8:9-24, centering the current value within the updated visual range, see figs 11-13, allowing for granular adjustments across different resolutions, cols 5:55-6:6 and 7:63-8:8)
receiving a second input from the user via the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed in the second resolution state, wherein the second input from the user indicates a second distance to move the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface (interactions [including a second input] with the control button results in setting different values, col 2:16-21. These interaction occur are different scales [including a second resolution state], e.g., a more precise or coarse adjustments of value are possible in different scales, Abstract and col 7:63-8:8. values are set at different scales [e.g., in a second resolution state], see Abstract, based on slider position movement over a specific distance from one value to another, col 5:55-6:6. at least because the second input is different that the first input, its range and distance of input movement is interpreted as a “second distance”)
determining, based on the second distance to move the control indicator on the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface in the second resolution state, a second updated current lighting intensity value, (as explained above, the adjustments of values are made in different scales, based on movements of the slider. Such is determined based on dragging slider a certain distance across the bar, e.g., 25% of the width of the slider control, col 6:33-41)
wherein the second distance over which the control indicator moved is greater than or equal to the first distance over which the control indicator moved, (see figs. 11 and 12. At a first scale [resolution], reflected for example at fig. 11, a distance required to move the slider between values 8-10 is approximately equal to the distance required to move, in a second scale [resolution] reflected for example at fig. 12, the slider between values 9-10. That is, the second distance [in second resolution] greater than or equal to the first distance [in the first resolution])
and wherein a difference between the first updated current lighting intensity value and the second updated current lighting intensity value is less than a different between the first updated current lighting intensity value and the current lighting intensity value; (see figs. 11 and 12. At a first scale [resolution], reflected for example at fig. 11, a distance required to move the slider between values 8-10 is approximately equal to the distance required to move, in a second scale [resolution] reflected for example at fig. 12, the slider between values 9-10. That is, the second range [9-10] is “less than the first range”)
and transmitting one or more second messages to control the current lighting intensity of the lighting load to the second updated current lighting intensity value in real-time as the control indicator moves within the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar. (as explained above, the values are changed in the different scales, as the slider moves by certain distances. Such value changes are necessarily accomplished, at least in part by transmitting one or more signals [second messages] from input hardware to operating system. See col 7:3-22)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to receiving an indication from a user to enter a fine-tuning mode and change the lighting intensity bar to a first resolution state of a plurality of resolution states, wherein each resolution state of the plurality of resolution states enables a different percentage change of light intensity adjustment for the lighting load receiving, during operation of the fine-tuning mode, an indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to a second resolution state of the plurality of resolution states; that the first input is received in the “first” resolution state determining, based on the indication to enter the fine-tuning mode and to change the lighting intensity bar to the first resolution state: a first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are above a lighting intensity value representing the current lighting intensity value of the lighting load; and a second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are below the current lighting intensity value of the lighting load; displaying a first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar within the predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface is defined by the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values above the current lighting intensity value and defined by the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values below the current lighting intensity value, and wherein the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar is initially displayed with the control indicator indicating the current lighting intensity value between the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values and the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar in the first resolution state that the control indicator moves within “the first zoomed-in sub-portion of” the lighting intensity bar determining, based on the indication to change the lighting intensity bar to the second resolution state during the operation of the fine-tuning mode: a third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are above the first updated current lighting intensity value; and a fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values of the lighting intensity bar that are below the first updated current lighting intensity value displaying a second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar previously displayed in the first resolution state in the second resolution state within the predefined space of the graphical user interface, wherein the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface is defined by the third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values above the first updated current lighting intensity value and defined by the fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values below the first updated current lighting intensity value, and wherein the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar is initially displayed with the control indicator indicating the first updated lighting intensity value between the third predefined portion of the lighting intensity values and the fourth predefined portion of the lighting intensity values the second resolution state receiving a second input from the user via the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed in the second resolution state, wherein the second input from the user indicates a second distance to move the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface determining, based on the second distance to move the control indicator on the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar displayed within the predefined space of the graphical user interface in the second resolution state, a second updated current lighting intensity value, wherein the second distance over which the control indicator moved is greater than or equal to the first distance over which the control indicator moved, and wherein a difference between the first updated current lighting intensity value and the second updated current lighting intensity value is less than a different between the first updated current lighting intensity value and the current lighting intensity value; and transmitting one or more second messages to control the current lighting intensity of the lighting load to the second updated current lighting intensity value in real-time as the control indicator moves within the second zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar, as taught/suggested by Amin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility afforded by the method, e.g., by ensuring the user can make both coarse and precise value adjustments, based on user’s need, Amin col 1:46-57. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying the value flexibility concepts suggested by Amin to the method of Clymer, would results in values that can be represented as percentages and used for lighting intensity adjustments. This leading to the obvious result of allowing lighting load adjustments be made at both coarse and precise adjustment modes.
Clymer, as modified, still does not explicitly teach, but Morgan teaches:
that the transmission of one or more first messages update values “in real-time”. (simplified and intuitive control of a lighting network, manually (in real time), Abstract and ¶ 64)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include that the transmission of one or more second messages control the lighting intensity value “in real-time”, as taught/suggested by Morgan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality/usability of the method, e.g., by including simple and intuitive real-time control of lighting, Morgan Abstract and ¶ 64, that provide desirable lighting conditions, Morgan ¶ 72, when desired.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches/suggests
wherein the second resolution state of the lighting intensity bar includes tick marks at a lower-percentage change in the lighting intensity than the first resolution state of the lighting intensity bar. (as reflected in figs. 11 [first resolution state] and 12 [second resolution state] of Amin, each of the lines [tick marks] representing values on the scale of fig. 12 are at a lower change value [.5] compared to the lines [tick marks] on the scale of fig. 11. As explained above, Clymer’s bar are reflected in percentage values, see at least ¶ 33 and fig. 9F)
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Amin further teaches
wherein the indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to the second resolution state includes an actuation of a button or a gesture by a user on the graphical user interface. (Here, it is noted that the button is not claimed as necessarily being an onscreen button, as such Amin teaches this limitation, since it teaches the switching of scales based on mouse button interactions, see col 8:28-24)
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches
wherein the gesture comprises one of a swiping gesture or a pinch of the user's fingers together or away from each other. (the limitation of claim 5 is an optional method limitation, because it depends on the indication in optional limitation of claim 4 being a gesture…on the GUI. Because the examiner already mapped this limitation to the button option, and only one option is required, claim 5 is already covered by mapping of claim 4)
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer teaches doesn’t directly teach, but Morgan teaches
the method further comprising: receiving an indication to automatically select a color temperature setting based on the lighting intensity; (the color temperature for a set of light sources may be adjusted/varied by adjusting/varying [receiving and indication indication] one or more intensities of the light sources, ¶ 71, in a given zone(s), ¶ 64. Herein, it is interpreted that the selection of temperature is “automatically” done at least because the selection is based on a different setting, i.e., a “lighting intensity” setting)
in response to receiving the first input, automatically selecting a first predefined color temperature value that corresponds to the first updated current lighting intensity value, (Morgan teaches the color temperature setting, ¶ 71. Herein, it is interpreted that the value is “predefined”, at least via some correlation, e.g., via a table of lighting control signals, Morgan ¶ 92, in the software code, between color temperatures and intensity values, which facilitate the “automatic” selection of the color temperatures based on lighting intensities. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments [“the first input”] of values at different resolutions [a first resolution])
and wherein the lighting load is controlled to the first predefined color temperature value in response to the first input; (Morgan teaches the color temperature setting, ¶ 71. In Clymer, settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments [“the first input”] of values at different resolutions [a first resolution)
and in response to receiving the second input, automatically selecting a second predefined color temperature value that corresponds to the second updated current lighting intensity value, (Morgan teaches the automatic color temperature setting based on lighting intensity, ¶ 71. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments [“the second input”] of values at different resolutions [a second resolution])
and wherein the lighting load is controlled to the second predefined color temperature value in response to the second input. (Morgan teaches the color temperature setting, ¶ 71. In Clymer, settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments [“the second input”] of values at different resolutions [a second resolution)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include the method further comprising: receiving an indication to automatically select a color temperature setting based on the lighting intensity; in response to receiving the first input, automatically selecting a first predefined color temperature value that corresponds to the first updated current lighting intensity value, and wherein the lighting load is controlled to the first predefined color temperature value in response to the first input; and in response to receiving the second input, automatically selecting a second predefined color temperature value that corresponds to the second updated current lighting intensity value, and wherein the lighting load is controlled to the second predefined color temperature value in response to the second input, as taught/suggested by Morgan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user capabilities afforded by the method to include an advanced degree of lighting settings control, e.g., color temperature settings, Morgan ¶ 3.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches
further comprising: receiving an indication from a user to save the second updated current lighting intensity value to a scene; (scenes are associated with settings such as light levels [lighting intensity value], Clymer ¶ 132. Upon editing the settings of a scene, the changes can be “saved”, Clymer ¶ 173, and settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments of values [“second lighting intensity value”] at different resolutions [a second resolution])
updating system configuration data to control a zone to according to the second updated current lighting intensity value and the second predefined color temperature value in response to an activation of the scene; (settings [configuration data] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133)
receiving a triggering event configured to trigger the activation of the scene; (settings [configuration data] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected [triggering event], can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133)
and controlling the zone to the second updated current lighting intensity value and the second color temperature value. (Morgan teaches the color temperature setting based on lighting intensity, ¶ 71. In Clymer, settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170. As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches adjustments of values [second lighting intensity value] at different resolutions [a second resolution)
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches
wherein the lighting load is comprised in a zone, wherein the zone is configured to be controlled for a scene; (settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices [lighting load] in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed [controlled for a scene] based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170)
wherein the scene is a first scene of a plurality of scenes, (there are a plurality of selectable scenes, Clymer fig. 6Q, and ¶ 170)
the method further comprising: receiving an indication from a user to save the second updated current lighting intensity value to a second scene (scenes are associated with settings such as light levels [lighting intensity value], Clymer ¶ 132. Upon editing the settings of a scene, the changes can be saved, Clymer ¶ 173, and settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133)
configured to control the lighting load of the zone in response to an activation of the second scene; (settings [e.g., light levels, lighting load] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected [an activation], can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133)
updating system configuration data to control the zone to according to the second updated current lighting intensity value in response to the activation of the second scene; (the saved settings [configuration data] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, are used to control/change lighting based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133)
receiving a triggering event configured to trigger the activation of the second scene; (selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133)
and controlling the zone to the second updated current lighting intensity value. (settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170)
Independent claims 43 and 44 are directed to a device and storage medium for executing the method of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Broekman; Paul Ulco et al. (hereinafter Broekman – US 20240080953 A1).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer doesn’t directly teach, but Broekman teaches/suggests
wherein the graphical user interface comprises a palette for configuring a color setting (a color for a light scene can be set, at least in part, slider, for adjusting the color [palette for configuring a color setting for the scene], Abstract and ¶¶ 10 and 60 and fig. 3a-3b. Herein, it is interpreted the slider is part of the color palette, at least in the embodiments where both first and second inputs are used to select a color setting, ¶¶ 10 and 60 and fig. 3a-3b. Note that color palettes typically include controls used to select colors.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include wherein the graphical user interface comprises a palette for configuring a color setting, as taught/suggested by Broekman.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the method by improve the desirability of the method by affording colored light scenes as desired by the user, Broekman ¶ 5.
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Amin further teaches/suggests
and wherein the palette is configured to display in at least a third resolution state and a fourth resolution state of the plurality of resolution states to enable different resolutions of control for the user. (zoom control button allows adjustments [plurality] to a scale [resolution states] for a slider bar, Abstract and figs 11-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include and wherein the palette is configured to display in at least a third resolution state and a fourth resolution state of the plurality of resolution states to enable different resolutions of control for the user, as taught/suggested by Amin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility afforded by the method, e.g., by ensuring the user can make both coarse and precise color value adjustments, based on user’s need and desire, Amin col 1:46-57 and Broekman ¶ 5. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying the color value flexibility concepts suggested by Amin and Broekman to the method of Clymer, this would result in fine and coarse control over color values.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Clymer doesn’t directly teach, but Amin, for reasons similar to those explained above in relation to claim 1 and lighting intensity changes at different resolutions, further teaches/suggests:
the method further comprising: receiving a third input from the user in the palette displayed in the third resolution state, wherein the third input is configured to cause the color setting to change over a first range of color values from a current color value to a first updated color value, (As explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity changes at different resolutions, Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions]. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color palette slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges of color values on a color palette.)
and wherein the third input causes an actuator in the palette to move by a third distance on the graphical user interface to indicate the change in the color setting over the first range of color values; (Amin teaches manipulating a slider [actuator] to move over different distances based on the different scales [resolutions], as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider movement would be applicable to movement in color values in a color palette.)
transmitting third messages configured to control the color setting of the lighting load over the first range of color values from the current color value to the first updated color value […] as the actuator moves by the third distance in the palette; (Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions], which involves transmitting message indicating the change, at least to an operating system, as the slider [actuator moves] by certain distances, as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider movement/distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges of color values in a palette.)
receiving an indication to change the palette from the third resolution state to a fourth resolution state; (Amin teaches adjusting/switching to different scales [resolutions], which involves transmitting message indicating the change, at least to an operating system, as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to resolutions of the color palette)
receiving a fourth input from the user in the palette displayed in the fourth resolution state, wherein the fourth input is configured to cause the color setting to change over a second range of color values from the first updated color value to a second updated color value, wherein the fourth input causes the actuator in the palette to move by a fourth distance on the graphical user interface to indicate the change in the color setting over the second range of color values, (Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions], as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges of color values.)
wherein the fourth distance over which the actuator moves on the palette is greater than or equal to the third distance, and wherein the second range of color values is less than the first range of color values; (Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions], which results in slider distances in second resolution that are greater than or equal to the distances in a first resolution, yet the range of values is less than the first range related to the first resolution state, as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value distances to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges of color values in a palette)
and transmitting fourth messages configured to control the color setting of the lighting load over the second range of color values from the first updated color value to the second updated color value […] as the actuator moves by the fourth distance in the palette. (Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions], which involves transmitting messages indicating the change, at least to an operating system, as explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity slider distances at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color slider, as suggested by Broekman, see claim 6, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges of color values in the color palette)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include the method further comprising: receiving a third input from the user in the palette displayed in the third resolution state, wherein the third input is configured to cause the color setting to change over a first range of color values from a current color value to a first updated color value, and wherein the third input causes an actuator in the palette to move by a third distance on the graphical user interface to indicate the change in the color setting over the first range of color values; transmitting third messages configured to control the color setting of the lighting load over the first range of color values from the current color value to the first updated color value […] as the actuator moves by the third distance in the palette; receiving an indication to change the palette from the third resolution state to a fourth resolution state; receiving a fourth input from the user in the palette displayed in the fourth resolution state, wherein the fourth input is configured to cause the color setting to change over a second range of color values from the first updated color value to a second updated color value, wherein the fourth input causes the actuator in the palette to move by a fourth distance on the graphical user interface to indicate the change in the color setting over the second range of color values, wherein the fourth distance over which the actuator moves on the palette is greater than or equal to the third distance, and wherein the second range of color values is less than the first range of color values; and transmitting fourth messages configured to control the color setting of the lighting load over the second range of color values from the first updated color value to the second updated color value […] as the actuator moves by the fourth distance in the palette, as taught/suggested by Amin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility afforded by the method, e.g., by ensuring the user can make both coarse and precise color value adjustments, based on user’s need/desired, Amin col 1:46-57. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying the value flexibility concepts suggested by Amin to the method of Clymer, would results in values that can be represented as percentages and used for lighting load adjustments. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that this would lead to the obvious result of allowing lighting load adjustments to be made at both coarse and precise adjustment modes.
Clymer, as modified, still does not explicitly teach, but Morgan teaches:
that the transmission of one or more second messages control the color values “in real-time”. (simplified and intuitive control of a lighting network, manually (in real time), Abstract and ¶ 64)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include that the transmission of one or more second messages control the lighting intensity value “in real-time”, as taught/suggested by Morgan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the practicality/usability of the method, e.g., by including simple and intuitive real-time control of lighting, Morgan Abstract and ¶ 64, that provide desirable lighting conditions, Morgan ¶ 72, when desired.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Morgan further teaches/suggests
wherein the color setting is a color temperature setting (user interface allowing for selection of lighting zone color temperature ¶ 6, e.g., by using a slider, ¶ 25).
wherein the first range of color values comprise a first range of color temperature values on a black-body curve, (Herein, it is interpreted that the color temperature values are “on a black-body curve” at least because they are reflective of Kelvin values on a black body radiator that radiates in a radiation waves with certain wavelength/spectrum [black-body curve], ¶¶ 17 and 69. As explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity changes at different resolutions, Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions]. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color temperature slider, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges [first range] of color values on a color temperature slider.)
and wherein the second range of color values comprise a second range of color temperature values on the black-body curve (Herein, it is interpreted that the color temperature values are “on a black-body curve” at least because they are reflective of Kelvin values on a black body radiator that radiates in a radiation waves with certain wavelength/spectrum [black-body curve], ¶¶ 17 and 69. As explained above for claim 1’s lighting intensity changes at different resolutions, Amin teaches changing slider values at over different ranges based on different scales [resolutions]. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implementing Amin’s concept of different slider resolutions and associated value ranges to a color temperature slider, that the slider resolution states would be applicable to different ranges [second range] of color values on a color temperature slider)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include wherein the color setting is a color temperature setting, wherein the first range of color values comprise a first range of color temperature values on a black-body curve, and wherein the second range of color values comprise a second range of color temperature values on the black-body curve, as taught/suggested by Morgan.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user capabilities afforded by the method to include an advanced degree of lighting settings control, e.g., color temperature settings, Morgan ¶ 3.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches
the method further comprising: receiving an indication from a user to save the second updated current lighting intensity value and the second updated color value to a scene; (scenes are associated with settings such as light levels [lighting intensity value], Clymer ¶ 132, a color settings/values too, as explained above in reference to claim 6 and Broekman. Upon editing the settings of a scene, the changes can be saved by the user [indication from a user to save], Clymer ¶ 173, and settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the intensity/color may include “second lighting intensity” or “second color” based on settings at a second resolution, see Amin’s contribution in claim 1)
updating system configuration data to control a zone according to the second updated current lighting intensity value and the second updated color value in response to an activation of the scene; (Settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices in that scene/zone, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. For color, see modification above, by Broekman, for claims 6- 7)
receiving a triggering event configured to trigger the activation of the scene; (selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133.).
and controlling the zone to the second updated current lighting intensity value and the second updated color value. (when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133 Also see Clymer ¶¶ 183-184 and 186; for color, see modification above, by Broekman, for claims 6-7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1), Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), Broekman (US 20240080953 A1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view Conner; Arlie et al. (hereinafter Conner – US 20160227629 A1).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Conner teaches/suggests
wherein the color setting is a full color setting, (full color lighting system for theatre, stage, and architectural environments that can create a wall wash, illuminate a curtain or cyclorama, or make a background color for a stage and performers, ¶ 10, including lighting elements that can be adjusted together, with a master controller, and can be dimmed and colored together to any imaginable sequence [full color], ¶ 24 and fig. 1, and controllable using soft sliders, ¶¶ 4-5.)
wherein the first range of color values comprise a first range of full color values on an x-axis or a y-axis of the palette, (Conner teaches the full color aspect, as explained above. Broekman’s slider is on an x-axis of the palette, at least because it is horizontally displayed on the user interface, see at least fig. 3a-3b. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in implementing Conner’s full color setting concept to further modify Clymer, it would be applicable to full color setting for the color palette of Clymer-Broekman. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that that the first range of color values would be pertinent to a first resolution, similar to the explanation provided above for lighting intensity values for claim 1, see Amin. Furthermore, note that left-right (or side to side) movements of GUIs or portions thereof are generally referred to as “x-axis scrolling” or “horizontal scrolling”, see Jeffrey Braun Doar in conclusion section)
and wherein the second range of color values comprise a second range of full color values on an x-axis or a y-axis of the palette. (Conner teaches the full color aspect, as explained above. Broekman’s slider is on an x-axis of the palette, at least because it is horizontally displayed on the user interface, see at least fig. 3a-3b. Furthermore, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that that the second range of color values would be pertinent to a second resolution, similarly to the explanation provided above for lighting intensity values for claim 1, see Amin. As mentioned in 112(b) rejection section, herein, this limitation is interpreted as being directed to a “second range” of full color values on an x-axis or a y-axis of the palette)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include wherein the color setting is a full color setting, wherein the first range of color values comprise a first range of full color values on an x-axis or a y-axis of the palette, and wherein the second range of color values comprise a second range of full color values on an x-axis or a y-axis of the palette, as taught/suggested by Conner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the versatility of the method, being applicable to additional environments, e.g., those capable of full color control for creating wall washes and/or other color displays, Conner ¶ 10.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1), Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), and Broekman (US 20240080953 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Keyser-Allen; Lee et al. (hereinafter Keyser-Allen – US 20160364206 A1).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Clymer further teaches
wherein the lighting control device comprises a first lighting control device and the lighting load comprises a first lighting load (A control system for the method includes one or more lighting loads corresponding to the respective lighting control devices, ¶ 208)
and a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device (a control system for the method includes one or more lighting loads corresponding to the respective lighting control devices, ¶ 208)
receiving a trigger event configured to trigger activation of the scene; (selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133)
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Keyser-Allen teaches
further comprising: receiving an indication that a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device is in an unaffected zone in a scene that is defined as being unaffected by the second updated current lighting intensity value saved for the scene; (a multi-zone group scene wherein a certain zone group may be selected for exclusion from the scene [unaffected zone], wherein multi-zone configuration is stored and submitted to an output device, e.g., a media content output device, Abstract and ¶¶ 20 and 96. As explained above, Clymer as modified, teaches the creation/saving of a lighting scene for a zone, and adjustments of values at different resolutions. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Keyser-Allen to further modify Clymer, the output device controlled are light sources, as explained above.)
and in response to receiving the triggering event, preventing control of the lighting intensity of the second lighting load, (operation of the playback devices will be control to not play content/music/audio [preventing control], when included in the excluded zones, ¶¶ 25 and 96 and fig. 11:1115. In implementing Keyser-Allen into Clymer, the controlled devices would include lighting devices. Operations are in response to a selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133. As explained in 112(b) rejection above, the limitation(s) is interpreted as being directed to controlling or not controlling the zones based on whether or not the scene settings identify the zones as “unaffected” zones.)
wherein the second lighting control device maintains a current lighting intensity value to which the second lighting load was controlled prior to the triggering event. (The playback device continues to operate under the configuration data for the multi-zone group scene until instructed otherwise and/or powered down [value to which the zone was controlled prior to the triggering event], ¶ 105. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that if playback devices in a zone have been previously instructed to operate in certain configuration, they will continue to do so, if they are excluded from a newly activated scene. In implementing Keyser-Allen into Clymer, the controlled devices would include lighting devices at previously instructed intensities)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include further comprising: receiving an indication that a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device is in an unaffected zone in a scene that is defined as being unaffected by the second updated current lighting intensity value saved for the scene; and in response to receiving the triggering event, preventing control of the lighting intensity of the second lighting load, wherein the second lighting control device maintains a current lighting intensity value to which the second lighting load was controlled prior to the triggering event, as taught/suggested by Keyser-Allen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility afforded by the method, e.g., by enhancing how the user may configure control scenes, including multiple zones, and to their desires/preferences, Keyser-Allen ¶¶ 90 and 96.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Clymer further teaches
wherein the lighting control device comprises a first lighting control device and the lighting load comprises a first lighting load, (A control system for the method includes one or more lighting loads corresponding to the respective lighting control devices, ¶ 208)
and a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device (a control system for the method includes one or more lighting loads corresponding to the respective lighting control devices, ¶ 208)
receiving a trigger event configured to trigger activation of the scene; (selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133)
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Keyser-Allen teaches
further comprising: receiving an indication that a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device is an unaffected zone in a scene that is defined as being unaffected by the second updated color value saved for the scene; (a multi-zone group scene wherein a certain zone group may be selected for exclusion from the scene [unaffected zone], wherein multi-zone configuration is stored and submitted to an output device, e.g., a media content output device, Abstract and ¶¶ 20 and 96. As explained above, Clymer as modified, teaches the creation/saving of a lighting scene for a zone, and adjustments of values at different resolutions [second color value]. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that in applying Keyser-Allen to further modify Clymer, the output device controlled are light sources, as explained above.)
and in response to receiving the triggering event, preventing control of the color setting of the unaffected zone, (operation of the playback devices will be control to not play content/music/audio [preventing control], when included in the excluded zones, ¶¶ 25 and 96 and fig. 11:1115. In implementing Keyser-Allen into Clymer, the controlled devices would include lighting devices. Operations are in response to a selection event [triggering event] for a scene, Clymer, ¶ 133. As explained above for the 112(b) rejection, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the transmitted messages being designed to controlling or not controlling the zones based on whether or not the scene settings identify the zones as “unaffected” zones. Per claim 7, interface also used for adjusting “color setting”)
wherein the second lighting control device maintains a current color setting to which the second lighting load was controlled prior to the triggering event. (The playback device continues to operate under the configuration data for the multi-zone group scene until instructed otherwise and/or powered down [maintains a current…setting to which the zone was controlled prior to the triggering event], ¶ 105. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that if playback devices in a zone have been previously instructed to operate in certain configuration, they will continue to do so, if they are excluded from a newly activated scene. In implementing Keyser-Allen into Clymer, the controlled devices would include lighting devices at previously instructed intensities)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include further comprising: receiving an indication that a second lighting load associated with a second lighting control device is an unaffected zone in a scene that is defined as being unaffected by the second updated color value saved for the scene; and in response to receiving the triggering event, preventing control of the color setting of the unaffected zone wherein the second lighting control device maintains a current color setting to which the second lighting load was controlled prior to the triggering event , as taught/suggested by Keyser-Allen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance the flexibility afforded by the method, e.g., by enhancing how the user may configure control scenes, including multiple zones, and to their desires/preferences, Keyser-Allen ¶¶ 90 and 96.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Springer; Shaun (Springer – US 9784417 B1).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, further teaches/suggests
receiving a third updated color temperature value based on user input via the graphical user interface; (Morgan teaches that a user can manually vary the color temperature by using buttons 3108, ¶ 108 and figs. 3-4. As explained above, for Clymer, as modified, the changes can be at any given resolution.)
and updating system configuration data to control the lighting load to according to the second updated current lighting intensity value and the third updated color temperature value. (Morgan teaches that a user can manually vary both the color temperature, by using buttons 3108, and the light intensity, by using buttons 3104, ¶ 108 and figs. 3-4. As explained above, Morgan also teaches updating color temperatures for lights [load] in zone(s). As explained above, Clymer, as modified, teaches lighting control at various resolutions, e.g., at a second resolution for controlling a “second lighting intensity value”)
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Springer teaches:
further comprising: receiving an indication to enable manual selection of the color temperature setting by the user. (a GUI that includes a feature for toggling an auto-temperature on or off, wherein when the feature is toggled off, allows a user to manually set a group of lighting devices to a specific color temperature, col 44:43-48 and fig. 20C)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include further comprising: receiving an indication to enable manual selection of the color temperature setting by the user, as taught/suggested by Springer.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the control flexibility of and enable switching between automatic color temperature state, Morgan ¶ 71, and manual control states, Morgan ¶ 108 and figs. 304, in a known an effective manner, Springer col 44:43-48 and fig. 20C.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann; Timothy et al. (hereinafter Mann – US 20180116040 A1).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer further teaches/suggests
wherein the lighting load is comprised in a zone, (settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices [lighting load] in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed [controlled for a scene] based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170)
wherein the zone is one of a plurality of zones configured to be controlled for a scene (as illustrated in fig. 6W under the “Bright” scene, multiple zones, e.g., the “Kitchen”, “Living Room”, and “Dining Room” [zones], are selectable to be controlled for a scene, ¶ 177 and fig. 6W. )
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Mann teaches
the method further comprising: determining that the lighting intensity for each zone of the plurality of zones is configured at a common lighting intensity; (controlling all lighting devices in a group to a same lighting intensity, or “common lighting intensity”, based on a user interacting with an actuator, ¶¶ 5 and 62, wherein the actuator can be a slider, ¶ 40. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in applying Mann to Clymer, a common group lighting intensity concept of Mann would be applicable to any grouping of lighting devices in Clymer, including to the group of lighting devices that are included in the multiple zones of a scene.)
displaying the common lighting intensity on the lighting intensity bar to allow absolute control of the plurality of lighting zones; (Mann teaches controlling the lighting intensity to a “common lighting intensity” using an actuator such as a slider, ¶¶ 5 and 40. Mann also teaches that the/actuator may provide “absolute control” of the lighting devices, ¶ 66, and displaying visual feedback of the intensity level of the lighting devices, ¶ 5)
and in response to the first input and the second input, controlling the plurality of zones according to the common lighting intensity. (the lights are controlled at a common/same lighting intensity level, Mann ¶ 5. As mentioned above, Clymer teaches controlling a plurality of zones, ¶ 177 and fig. 6W. Furthermore, as explained above for claim 1, the lighting control occur based on adjustments of values at multiple resolutions, including inputs at a first and second resolutions [the first input and the second input]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include the method further comprising: determining that the lighting intensity for each zone of the plurality of zones is configured at a common lighting intensity; displaying the common lighting intensity on the lighting intensity bar to allow absolute control of the plurality of lighting zones; and in response to the first input and the second input, controlling the plurality of zones according to the common lighting intensity, as taught/suggested by Mann.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of the method by providing quick and organize control of electrical loads, even when the loads are out of synch, Mann ¶ 5.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer teaches
wherein the lighting load a first lighting load is comprised in a first zone, (settings [e.g., light levels] for different devices [lighting load] in that scene, when that scene is selected, can be controlled/changed [controlled for a scene] based on those settings, Clymer ¶ 133. Those devices being a zone, specified by the scene settings, e.g., “kitchen”, Clymer ¶ 170)
wherein the first zone is one of a plurality of zones configured to be controlled for a scene, (as illustrated in fig. 6W under the “Bright” scene, multiple zones, e.g., the “Kitchen”, “Living Room”, and “Dining Room” [zones], are selectable to be controlled for a scene, ¶ 177 and fig. 6W. )
Clymer does not appear to expressly teach, but Mann teaches/suggests
the method further comprising: determining that the lighting intensity for the first zone of the plurality of zones is configured at a different lighting intensity than a second zone; (controlling all lighting devices in a group to a different lighting intensity, based on a user interacting with rotation portion, ¶ 67, of an actuator, ¶ 62, wherein the actuator can be a slider, ¶ 40. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art, in applying Mann to Clymer, a different group lighting intensity concept of Mann would be applicable to any grouping of lighting devices in Clymer, including to the group of lighting devices that are included in the multiple zones of a scene.)
displaying a second lighting intensity bar on the graphical user interface configured to allow a relative change in the lighting intensity for the second zone of the plurality of zones; (the actuator allows relative control of the devices, ¶ 66, and displaying visual feedback of the intensity level of the lighting devices, ¶ 5)
in response to the first input and the second input, maintaining the lighting intensity for the second zone, in response to a third input received on the second lighting intensity bar, controlling the second zone of the plurality of zones based on the relative change indicated by the third input. (the lights are controlled at relative lighting intensity level, Mann ¶ 66. As mentioned above, Clymer teaches controlling a plurality of zones, ¶ 177 and fig. 6W. Furthermore, as explained above for claim 1, the lighting control occur based on adjustments of values at multiple resolutions, including inputs at a first and second resolutions [the first input and the second input])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Clymer to include the method further comprising: determining that the lighting intensity for the first zone of the plurality of zones is configured at a different lighting intensity than a second zone;
displaying a second lighting intensity bar on the graphical user interface configured to allow a relative change in the lighting intensity for the second zone of the plurality of zones;
in response to the first input and the second input, maintaining the lighting intensity for the second zone, in response to a third input received on the second lighting intensity bar, controlling the second zone of the plurality of zones based on the relative change indicated by the third input, as taught/suggested by Mann.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of the method by providing quick and organize control of electrical loads, even when the loads are out of synch, Mann ¶ 5.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farrenkopf; Eckhard et al. (hereinafter Farrenkopf – US 20110283188 A1).
Claim 48:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Farrenkopf teaches:
further comprising: receiving an indication to move the control indicator to a predefined lighting intensity value in the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values or the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values in the first zoomed-in sub-portion portion of the lighting intensity bar; scrolling within the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar to display additional lighting intensity values not previously displayed by the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar; identifying selection of a lighting intensity value not previously displayed by the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar based on the scrolling; and transmitting one or more third messages configured to control the lighting intensity of the lighting load to the selected lighting intensity value (a slider of values that can be displayed in different granularities, Abstract, may display different values not previously displayed, in response to gestures, enables the selection of values outside the initial view by allowing users to scroll and navigate through a range of values via the swipe, see ¶ 31 and fig 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include further comprising: receiving an indication to move the control indicator to a predefined lighting intensity value in the first predefined portion of the lighting intensity values or the second predefined portion of the lighting intensity values in the first zoomed-in sub-portion portion of the lighting intensity bar; scrolling within the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar to display additional lighting intensity values not previously displayed by the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar; identifying selection of a lighting intensity value not previously displayed by the first zoomed-in sub-portion of the lighting intensity bar based on the scrolling; and transmitting one or more third messages configured to control the lighting intensity of the lighting load to the selected lighting intensity value, as taught by Farrenkopf.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to increase the flexibility and ease of use, Farrenkopf ¶ 13, e.g., allowing to navigate through large list of value ranges in an easy fashion.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clymer (US 20180364665 A1) in view of Amin (US 6922816 B1) and Morgan (US 20060076908 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dieberger, Andreas et al. (hereinafter Dieberger – US 20030122874 A1).
Claim 49:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Clymer, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Dieberger teaches:
wherein the indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to the second resolution state includes the swiping gesture by the user, and wherein the swiping gesture is in a different direction than the movement of the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar (altering a slider resolution based on user input, specifically by having the user move the mouse perpendicular to the direction of the slider bar, which teaches the concept of changing intensity via a gesture in a different direction than the control indicator, ¶ 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Clymer to include wherein the indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to the second resolution state includes the swiping gesture by the user, and wherein the swiping gesture is in a different direction than the movement of the control indicator on the lighting intensity bar, as taught by Dieberger.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the visualization and navigation of information, by allowing efficient browsing and retrieval of relevant information allowing users to select granularity of the information displayed in a slider window, Dieberger ¶¶ 3, 5 and 17.
Comments/Response to Arguments
The applicant has amended to add more details to the claims. As noted in Page 26 of Non-Final Rejection dated 1/30/2023, “verbosity of a claim language is not sufficient to prove nonobviousness”. This is supported in MPEP 706, wherein even the claim were a "picture claim" (an exceptionally detailed patent claim that outlines every feature of an invention), this narrowness does not inherently justify allowance. The MPEP explicitly states that a "picture" claim must still meet all statutory requirements for patentability, as merely reciting all features is not a valid basis for allowance. Here, the claims, even if not perfect examples of picture claims, they are similar to “picture claims” because they are extremely narrow. However, this doesn’t justify allowance because this narrowness is reflective of repetitive iterations of the same and known concepts. The different iterations of the claimed method are reflective of a graphical interface with a lighting intensity bar for precise lighting control. Users can repetitively enter a fine-tuning mode to zoom in on specific lighting intensity values, making fine adjustments to the lighting brightness in real-time. Additionally, users can switch between different resolution states as often as needed to further refine their lighting adjustments with even greater precision.
The previous claim objection(s), 112(a) and 112(b) rejection(s) have been overcome by amendment.
The applicant’s 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive and/or otherwise rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection above.
First, the applicant alleges that Amin fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 because “nothing in Amin contemplates” lighting intensity values/lighting loads, or the zoomed-in sub-portions. Remarks Pg(s) 20-21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The applicant attacks Amin individually when Amin used in combination with Clymer. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The lighting intensity concept is taught by Clymer, and Amin teaches the concept of zooming in/out of a slider of control values.
Second, the applicant alleges the Broekman cannot be uses as prior to claims 6, 7-10, 11 and 13, of the instant application because of the date it was filed (April 8, 2022), which doesn’t predate the filing date of the present application (May 14, 2021). Remarks Pg(s) 21-22.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Broekman’s PCT was filed on that date in 2022, but it claims foreign priority to an application filed on October, 11, 2019.
The applicant’s reasoning is incorrect per MPEP guidelines because the effective prior art date of a published PCT application is generally its international filing date or its earliest validly claimed priority date, not its subsequent U.S. national stage entry or domestic publication date. E.g., see MPEP 901
Third, the applicant alleges that the previous rejection failed to contemplate the subject matter of claim 5, because Clymer raises or lowers the intensity of light and isn’t changing the resolution states. See Remarks Pg(s) 22.
The examiner agrees that the citation of Clymer, but the previous claims, did not make that distinction, because the claims includes a control indicator indicating [which is an indication] the lighting intensity of the lighting load.
Claim 5, as amended, must be treated with the adequate specificity required by claim 4 from which it depends (wherein the indication to change the lighting intensity bar from the first resolution state to the second resolution state), so the argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Furthermore, the limitation of claim 5 is an optional method limitation, because it depends on the indication in optional limitation of claim 4 being a gesture…on the GUI. Because the examiner already mapped this limitation to the button option, and only one option is required, claim 5 is already covered by mapping of claim 4. See 103 rejection above.
Fourth, the applicant repeated mentions the “five separate references” used for claims 9, 11 and 13, and alleges that the office’s repeated use of “it was well withing the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that” statements fail to provide a prima facie case of obviousness. Remarks Pg(s) 22-24.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
A reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Although such statements were used, they were not used to provide obviousness rationales by themselves––they were used in connection with citations to specific portions of the references and combination rationales. When the phrases are used as a connective statement alongside explicit prior art citations and a proper motivation-to-combine rationale, it is entirely proper because it relies on the "common sense" and background expertise that the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) is legally presumed to possess, e.g., in order to fill in any gaps. E.g., see MPEP § 2141 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Gibbs; Jason et al. (US 20160151117 A1), pertinent to one or more of the resolution limitation(s) of claim 1, for disclosing changing the spacing between tick marks on a reticle based on a zoom level, ¶ 27 and figs. 4-5.
Drake; Jonathan et al. (US 20090180149 A1), pertinent for disclosing at least some aspects of claims 6-14, concerning selection of color using slider, ¶ 34.
Shaw; Han-Yi et al. (US 20170315704 A1), pertinent to at least to claims 6-14 for teaching that color palettes typically include controls used to select colors, ¶ 4.
Dasgupta; Aninda V. (US 5926101 A), pertinent to at least claims 7-14 and 44 for disclosing that today’s “typical” network, include “real time control” of modern buildings, which includes control of lighting, col 1:19-23.
Ward; Greg et al. (US 20190266977 A1), pertinent to claim 8’s “color temperature” and “black-body curve” concept(s) at least for disclosing determining black body spectrum for the received color temperature setting, ¶¶ 5 and 58.
Doar, Jeffrey Braun (US 20040021694 A1), pertinent to at least claim 9 for teaching that left to right (or side to side) movements of GUIs or portions thereof are generally referred to as “x-axis scrolling” or “horizontal scrolling”, e.g., ¶ 25.
McKenzie; Trent R. (US 20210232624 A1), pertinent to claim 9’s “full color” slider at least for disclosing a color slider corresponding to CMYK value, ¶ 63.
Kamp; Antonie Leonardus Johannes et al. (US 20190230768 A1), pertinent for disclosing certain aspect(s) of claim 19 related to relative change of intensities using a master slider, ¶ 86 and fig. 5A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights