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 .
This is a response to the amendment filed 6/5/2026. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-14 are pending and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this instant, the specification has failed to describe as to how the newly added limitations “in response to the number of lighting apparatuses connected to the lighting apparatus driver being reduced, each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same amount of current as provided prior to the reduction, based on the dimming signal, to the lighting apparatus connected thereto to cause each separate lighting apparatus to emit approximately the same brightness level” in such a way that one skilled in the art is enable to make and use of the invention at the time the invention was filed. In the applicant’s remarks, applicant indicated that support for claim amendments may be found at, e.g., page 6, line 22 - page 7, line 8 of the specification of the present application as originally filed. Page 6, line 22 - page 7, lines 1-5 mainly discusses functionality of the prior art figure 1; lines 6-8 of page 7 concludes that “There is a need for a lighting apparatus driver that enables each lighting apparatus to have substantially the same brightness when dimmed and can have further reduced costs” and it does not describe as to how this can be achieved. More importantly, the conclusive statement have failed to describe as to how “in response to the number of lighting apparatuses connected to the lighting apparatus driver being reduced, each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same amount of current as provided prior to the reduction”, as claimed, is enabled.
Claims 3-11 and 13-14 are also rejected under 35USC 112, first paragraph because of the technical deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-14 is/are as being as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 201690655U) in view of Zhou et al. (USP 10,880,968).
Regarding claim 1, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows A lighting apparatus driver, comprising: a filter to filter out noise (C1); a rectifier (B1) to convert an AC voltage into a DC voltage; a boost module (front stage fly back DC-DC constant voltage circuit) to receive the DC voltage from the rectifier and output a relatively constant output DC voltage; a dimming controller to output a dimming signal (intelligent PWM dimming control circuit outputting a dimming control signal (P0); a plurality of voltage regulator IC modules (L1, D2, C5, R5, C6, R6, LM3404) indirectly connected to the rectifier, wherein each voltage regulator IC modules of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is directly is to be connected to a separate lighting apparatus (LED_1 to LED_N), each separate lighting apparatus (LED_1 to LED_N) having a first end and a second end, each separate light apparatus being directly connected to an individual one of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules on the first end (top lead of LED1 is directedly connected to L1 which is part of a voltage regulator IC module) and directly connected to the boost module on the second end (bottom of LEDn is connected to R6 which is part of a voltage regulator IC module) to receive the relatively constant output DC voltage , whereas each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same amount of current, based on the dimming signal (plurality of voltage regulator IC modules are independently controlled by dimming signals P0-PN which are constant output current, see paragraph 0014) to the lighting apparatus connected thereto, the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules comprising Buck modules (Buck modules are construed to be Buck converter; see Lou’s paragraph 0013 which explicitly teaches that each DC-DC constant output circuit LM3404 is Buck type converter).
The difference seen between Lou reference and the present invention is the two or more of the separate lighting apparatuses having different sizes and power utilizations; where each of the plurality voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same of current, based on the diming signal to cause each separate lighting apparatus to emit approximately the same brightness level as called for in claim 1. Lou’s driver circuit is silent on the number of LEDs on each strings to be equal, however, it is capable of handling two more LEDs strings, each string allows up to N numbers of LEDs elements. It is also certain that Lou’s driver circuit is operable for different number LEDs on each string as long as the number of LED is less than N (different power consumption limited by N). Zhou et al.’s figure 3 teaches a driver circuit for different color string LEDs. Different color LEDs known to have different sizes and consumption different amount of power (e.g., different number of LEDs). Thus, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have Lou’s LED strings arranged with different sizes and power consumption for the purpose of providing different colors as taught by Zhou et al. reference.
Regarding the limitation that each separate lighting apparatus to emit approximately the same brightness level, it is noted that since Lou et al.’s apparatus uses a separate voltage regulator IC module to control the current used in each lighting apparatus, thus, the brightness of each lighting apparatus is capable of being kept at the same brightness level even when the number of lighting apparatus being reduced. Thus, the newly added limitation “in response to the number of lighting apparatuses connected to the lighting apparatus driver being reduced, each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same amount of current as provided prior to the reduction” is also met.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the lighting apparatus driver further comprises a dimming control (intelligent PWM dimming control circuit), and the dimming control is coupled to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules, so as to send a dimming control signal to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules.
Regarding claim 4, , wherein when the dimming control signal (PO_1 to PO_N) is to cause brightness of each of multiple lighting apparatuses to change, the dimming signal is sent to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules, and each voltage regulator IC module independently inputs substantially the same current to the lighting apparatus connected thereto, such that the brightness of each of the multiple lighting apparatus is substantially the same.
Regarding claim 5, LOU et al.’s figure 2 shows the dimming control is isolation dimming control.
Regarding claim 6, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows wherein the isolation dimming control is magnetic diming control or optocoupler (U1) based dimming control.
Regarding claim 8, Lou et al.’s voltage regulator IC modules comprises a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET).
Regarding claim 9, Lou et al.’s figure 2 lighting apparatus driver does not include a half bridge.
Regarding claim 10, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows the lighting apparatus driver is to drive a plurality of LED lamps connected in parallel.
Regarding claim 11, Lou et al.’s LED lamps are capable of having different sizes and/or power.
Regarding claim 13, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows the Boost module is coupled between the rectifier and the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules.
Regarding claim 14, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows the rectifier is a rectifier bridge.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 201690655U). in view of Zhou et al. (USP 10,880,968).
Regarding claim 7, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows a lighting apparatus driver comprising all the aspects of the present invention as note above except the control signal is in a form of voltage or is based on a DALI protocol as called for in claim 7.
Zhou et al.’s column 3, lines 55-60 teaches that brightness control signals can be communicated via a standard interface DALI. Since Lou et al.’s PWM dimming control circuit is an intelligent PWM dimming control circuit, it is certainly capable of being programmed with DALI protocol. Thus, outside of any non-obviousness results, the obviousness of using DALI protocol is unpatentable under 35USc 103 as taught by Zhou et al. reference.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (USP 10,880,968) in view of Chapuis (US 2008/0010474)
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 shows A lighting apparatus driver, comprising: a filter to filter out noise (101); a rectifier (102) to convert an AC voltage into a DC voltage; a boost module to receive the DC voltage from the rectifier and output a relatively constant output DC voltage (125); a plurality of voltage regulator IC modules (140A, 140B are switched mode current DC/DC converters) indirectly connected to the rectifier, wherein each voltage regulator IC modules of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is directly connected to a separate lighting apparatus (146A, 146B), each separate lighting apparatus (146A and 146B) having a first end and a second end, each separate light apparatus being directly connected to an individual one of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules on the first end and directly connected to the boost module (125) on the second end (second end of 146A and 146B connected to ground 114; the boost module is also connected to ground) to receive the relatively constant output DC voltage, two or more of the separate lighting apparatuses having different sizes and power utilizations (each 146A and 148B has different colors, thus, it inherently has different sizes and power consumption),where each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to the lighting apparatus connected thereto to cause each separate lighting apparatus to emit approximately the same brightness level (noted, since Zhou et al.’s apparatus uses a separate voltage regulator IC module to control the current used in each lighting apparatus, thus, the brightness of each lighting apparatus is capable of being kept at the same level) even when the number of lighting apparatus being reduced. Thus, the newly added limitation “in response to the number of lighting apparatuses connected to the lighting apparatus driver being reduced, each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules is capable of independently controlling current input to provide approximately the same amount of current as provided prior to the reduction” is also met.
Zhou et al. reference fails to disclose the switched mode DC/DC converter (140A and 140B) being Buck DC/DC converters as called for in claim 1. Chapuis’s paragraph 0050 teaches that Buck DC/DC converter is a particular type of switched mode DC/DC converter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Zhou et al.’s switched mode DC/DC converters made of Buck type DC/DC converters as taught by Chapuis reference.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the lighting apparatus driver further comprises a dimming control (144) and the dimming control is coupled to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules, so as to send a dimming control signal (141A, 141B) to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules.
Regarding claim 4, wherein when the dimming control signal (141A, 141B) is to cause brightness of each of multiple lighting apparatuses to change, the dimming signal is sent to each of the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules, and each voltage regulator IC module independently inputs substantially the same current to the lighting apparatus connected thereto, such that the brightness of each of the multiple lighting apparatus is substantially the same.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 shows the dimming control (144) is isolation dimming control (column 3, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 6, Lou et al.’s figure 2 shows wherein the isolation dimming control (144) is capable of being magnetic diming control or optocoupler based dimming control (column 3, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the control signal is in a form of voltage or is based on a DALI protocol (see column 3, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al.’s voltage regulator IC modules comprises a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 lighting apparatus driver does not include a half bridge.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 shows the lighting apparatus driver is to drive a plurality of LED lamps connected in parallel.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou et al.’s LED lamps are capable of having different sizes and/or power.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 shows the Boost module is coupled between the rectifier and the plurality of voltage regulator IC modules.
Regarding claim 14, Zhou et al.’s figure 3 shows the rectifier is a rectifier bridge.
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. In this regard, applicant’s cited prior art has been carefully considered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN THIEU LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/TUAN T LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights