DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 10/27/2025. In virtue of this request:
Claim 17 is canceled;
Claims 1, 6 and 19-20 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending;
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0174598A1 hereinafter ‘Twaddell” in view of US2021/0307139A1 hereinafter “Green”
Regarding claim 1, Twaddell discloses a wall mounted control device (¶8L1-2: an control device (e.g., a wall-mounted keypad)) installed within a space (¶21L1-2: the room in which the keypad is installed) comprising:
at least one button (¶15L6: a plurality of buttons);
at least one LED adapted to backlight the at least one button (¶17L12-16: the buttons may be illuminated by one or more light sources located behind the button);
a light sensor that detects light levels present within the space (¶21L9-12: the keypad comprise an ambient light detection circuit which may be located inside the keypad and configured to measure the ambient light level in the room) and outputs light level readings (¶31L4-6: the ambient light detector may generate an ambient light detect signal which indicate the ambient light level);
a memory (¶25L1-2: the control device include a memory); and
at least one controller adapted to control an operation of an associated electrical load upon actuation of the at least one button (¶16L1-4: the keypad transmit message to one or more external load control device for controlling respective electrical load);
in response to receiving a light level reading from the light sensor, and drives the at least one LED. (¶22L1-3: the keypad may be configured to adjust the active and inactive surface illumiation intensity in response to the measured ambient light level)
Twaddell does not expclitly disclose:
the memory that stores a color temperature curve represented change in color temperature as a function of change in light level readings such that:
as the light level readings increase from a minimum light level reading to a maximum light level reading, the color temperatures increase from a minimum color temperature to a maximum color temperature; and
as the light level readings decrease from the maximum light level reading to the minimum light level reading the color temperatures decrease from the maximum color temperature to the minimum color temperature
Green discloses a color temperature control of a light device wherein
the memory that stores a color temperature curve (¶69L13-15: the values of the CCT-illuminance curve may be stored in memory) represented change in color temperature as a function of change in light level readings (¶69L3-6: control the color temperature of the light emitted from the device based on (e.g., as a function of) the determine illuminance level) such that:
as the light level readings increase from a minimum light level reading to a maximum light level reading, the color temperatures increase from a minimum color temperature to a maximum color temperature (as shown in Fig.7); and
as the light level readings decrease from the maximum light level reading to the minimum light level reading the color temperatures decrease from the maximum color temperature to the minimum color temperature (as shown in Fig.7)
the at least one controller determines a color temperature level using the received light level reading (¶9L1-3: the lighting device may be configured to adjust a color of light emitted by the light device based on a light level of ambient light proximate to the lighting device) and the color temperature curve, and drives the at least one LED at the determined color temperature level. (¶69L3-6: control the color temperature of the light emitted from the device based on (e.g., as a function of) the determine illuminance level)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the backlighting disclosed by Twaddell to operate based on ambient light and color temperature curve disclosed by Green.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the color temperate plot disclosed by Green is often viewed as comfortable or pleasing to an observer at particular illuminance level. (¶66L1-7)
Regarding claim 2, Twaddell in view of Green hereinafter “Twaddell/Green” discloses in Green the control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to
determine the color temperature curve using a minimum color temperature setting and a maximum color temperature setting. (¶69L15-19: the values of the CCT-illuminance curve may be configure by a user and/or automatically configured by the lighting device)
Regarding claim 5, Twaddell/Green discloses in Green the control device of claim 1, wherein
the color temperature curve comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a linear curve, a logarithmic curve, an exponential curve, an irregular curve, and any combinations thereof. (as shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 6, Twaddell/Green discloses in Green the control device of claim 1, wherein
the change in color temperatures as a function of change in light level readings of the color temperature curve comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a lookup table, a function, a mapping function, a conversion formula, a slope, an equation, and any combinations thereof. (as shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claims 7, Twaddell/Green discloses in Green the control device of claim 1, wherein
the electrical load comprises a lighting load (¶40L1:light device); wherein
the at least one controller is also adapted to drive the lighting load using the determined color temperature level. (¶69L3-6: control the color temperature of the light emitted from the device based on (e.g., as a function of) the determine illuminance level)
Regarding claims 8, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 1, wherein the memory further stores
a dimming curve represented by a relationship between light level readings and intensity levels (¶22L1-8: the keypad configured to adjust the illumination intensities is response to the measure ambient light level), wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to:
determine an intensity level using the received light level reading and the dimming curve; and drive the at least one LED at the determined intensity level. (¶22L3-8: increase the active and inactive surface illumination intensities if the ambient light level increase, and decrease the illumination intensities if the ambient light level decrease)
Regarding claims 9, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 8, wherein
the at least one controller is further adapted to determine the dimming curve using a minimum intensity setting and a maximum intensity setting. (¶371-13: a minimum ambient light level; a maximum ambient light level)
Regarding claims 12, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 8, wherein
the at least one dimming curve comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a linear curve, a logarithmic curve, an exponential curve, an irregular curve, and any combinations thereof. (as shown in Fig.3-4 for example)
Regarding claims 13, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 8, wherein
the relationship between light level readings and intensity levels of the dimming curve comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a lookup table, a function, a mapping function, a conversion formula, a slope, an equation, and any combinations thereof. (as shown in Fig.3-4 for example)
Regarding claims 14, Twaddell/Green discloses the control device of claim 8, wherein
the electrical load comprises a lighting load (Green ¶40L1:light device); wherein
the at least one controller is also adapted to drive the lighting load using the determined intensity level. (¶22L1-8: the keypad configured to adjust the illumination intensities is response to the measure ambient light level)
Regarding claims 15, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the at least one button comprises
translucent material for allowing light to pass through from the at least one LED. (¶17L8-10: each button may be made of translucent material)
Regarding claims 16, Twaddell/Green discloses in Twaddell the control device of claim 1, wherein
the at least one button comprises at least one indicia that is backlit using the at least one LED. (¶18L1-4: each button may have a translucent body and an opaque material adhered to a front surface of the body)
Regarding claims 18, Twaddell/Green discloses in Green the control device of claim 1, wherein
the color temperature curve comprises color temperatures ranging between 2000K to 6500K. (as shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claims 19-20, the independent recites various limitation from a combination of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-18, therefore, rejected as above.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twaddell/Green in view of US2023/0007744A1 hereinafter “Chaturvedi”.
Regarding claim 3, Twaddell/Green discloses the control device of claim 2,
Twaddell/Green does not explicitly disclose:
the minimum color temperature setting and the maximum color temperature setting are selected using the at least one button.
Chaturvedi discloses a configuring color control for lighting device wherein:
the minimum color temperature setting and the maximum color temperature setting are selected using the at least one button. (¶157L1-2: the control interface may include a high-end intensity control and a low-end intensity control; the high-end intensity button and low-end intensity button may allow user to set/change/reconfigure the lighting intensity value)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system disclosed by Twaddell/Green to have the control interface disclosed by Chaturvedi in order to control the value of CCT-illuminance curve which Green disclose may be configure by a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because having a user interface/button to modify/change settings to a system is routine in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Twaddell/Green discloses the control device of claim 2,
Twaddell/Green does not explicitly disclose:
the at least one controller is further adapted to receive the minimum color temperature setting and the maximum color temperature setting from a user interface.
Chaturvedi discloses a configuring color control for lighting device wherein:
the at least one controller is further adapted to receive the minimum color temperature setting and the maximum color temperature setting from a user interface. (¶150L1-5: graphical user interface)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system disclosed by Twaddell/Green to have the control interface disclosed by Chaturvedi in order to control the value of CCT-illuminance curve which Green disclose may be configure by a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because having a user interface/button to modify/change settings to a system is routine in the art.
Regarding claims 10, Twaddell/Green discloses the control device of claim 9,
Twaddell/Green does not explicitly disclose:
the minimum intensity setting and the maximum intensity setting are selected using the at least one button.
Chaturvedi discloses a configuring color control for lighting device wherein:
the minimum intensity setting and the maximum intensity setting are selected using the at least one button. (¶157L1-2: the control interface may include a high-end intensity control and a low-end intensity control; the high-end intensity button and low-end intensity button may allow user to set/change/reconfigure the lighting intensity value)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system disclosed by Twaddell/Green to have the control interface disclosed by Chaturvedi in order to control the value intensity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because having a user interface/button to modify/change settings to a system is routine in the art.
Regarding claims 11, Twaddell/Green discloses the control device of claim 9,
Twaddell/Green does not explicitly disclose:
the at least one controller is further adapted to receive the minimum intensity setting and the maximum intensity setting from a user interface.
Chaturvedi discloses a configuring color control for lighting device wherein:
the at least one controller is further adapted to receive the minimum intensity setting and the maximum intensity setting from a user interface. (¶150L1-5: graphical user interface)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the system disclosed by Twaddell/Green to have the control interface disclosed by Chaturvedi in order to control the value intensity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because having a user interface/button to modify/change settings to a system is routine in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,288,494 and 12,225,647 in view of Twaddell, Green and Chaturvedi.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitation not explicitly recited in the previous patent is rendered obvious in view of the prior art rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844