REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
Priority Date
Reissue 18/233,231 of the U.S. Patent No. 9,345,097 has been filed on August 11th, 2023. The US Patent ‘097 has been filed on October 9th, 2014 and published on May 17th, 2016. The US Patent No. 097 is a continuation in part of applications 13/970,990, 14/097,339 and 14/314,530, thus the earliest effective date is August 20th, 2013.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 22-45 are pending including independent claims 22, 30, 38.
Claims 1-21 are cancelled.
Claims 22-45 are rejected.
Claims 26, 29, 34, 37, 42 and 45 are objected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 24, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Oath or Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed on August 11, 2023 is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Furthermore, the MPEP 1444 states:
(D) For continuation or divisional reissue applications:
(1) Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the reissue oath/declaration from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) without further evaluation, because it is an oath/declaration, albeit improper under 35 U.S.C. 251. The examiner should, however, reject the claims of the continuation reissue application under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based on an oath/declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by the continuation reissue application, and should require a new oath/declaration that identifies a new error or a statement explaining compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) if appropriate. If the same error corrected in the parent is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012. For these applications, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 is not needed. For a reissue application filed before September 16, 2012, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 will be needed to waive pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) in order to rely on the same error identified in the parent but being corrected in a different way. See 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012. One of form paragraphs 14.01.01, 14.01.02, or 14.01.03 may be used.
A statement in the oath/declaration filed on August 11, 2023 lists the same error as the one listed in the parent reissue application No. 17/087,562. This would not be considered a sufficient "error" because the applicant has not provided a statement about how the error is being corrected in a different way.
Claims 22-45 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner finds several instances where the claim term explicitly includes functional language which would invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifier:
Claims 22 and 38: “LED driver control circuitry to: [1] generate an alternating sequence of illumination intervals and measurement intervals such that: for at least a portion of each of the illumination intervals, cause at least a portion of the plurality of LEDs to provide an illumination having a target color output; and for at least a portion of each of the measurement intervals, cause at least the portion of the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination, [2] determine an operating temperature for each of one or more LEDs of the plurality of LEDs, and [3] characterize a luminous flux output of each of the one or more LEDs as a function of a drive current applied to each of the one or more LEDs at the determined operating temperature of each of the one or more LED.”
The support for limitation [1] can be found in column 2, line 48 to column 3, line 3 and column 3, lines 38-45. In addition, the control circuitry supporting the described function is depicted in Figure 21, elements 2035, 2120 and 2125.
Support for limitation [2] is found in column 11, lines 17-40. In addition, the control circuitry supporting the described function is depicted in Figure 21, elements 2140 and 2180.
Limitation [3] is taught in column 9, lines 20-54 and column 9, line 62- column 10, line 22, wherein calibration tables are utilized to depict the relationship/function among luminous flux output, junction temperature and drive current.
Claims 23 and 39: “the LED driver control circuitry to further: [4] determine a respective target luminous flux for each of the plurality of LEDs to achieve a target color output:
responsive to determination of the target luminous flux for each of the plurality of LEDs, determine a respective target drive current for each of the plurality of LEDs at the determined operating temperature using the characterization of the luminous flux output as a function of applied drive current supplied to each respective LED; and
supply the respective target drive current to each of the plurality of LEDs to achieve the target color output during at least one subsequent illumination interval.”
The support for limitation [4] can be found in column 11, lines 47-50 and Figure 6 and 7
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims22, 23, 38 and 39 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP §§ 2173 and 2181 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 22-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(I)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(A)) In the instant case, the Applicant seeks to broaden original independent claims 22, 30 and 38 by omitting at least the patent claim language requiring, “and supplying a non-operative drive current to each LED chain, one chain at a time, during the short durations of time to measure an operating forward voltage developed across each LED chain” and “determining respective drive currents needed to achieve a desired luminous flux from each LED chain using the operating forward voltages measured across each LED chain, a table of calibration values and one or more interpolation techniques” (emphasis added).
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(B)) The record of the prior application No. 13/970,990 prosecution history indicates that in a Response filed on November 19, 2015, the Applicant amended the claims and added following limitations: “supplying a non-operative drive current to each LED chain, one chain at a time, during the short durations of time to measure an operating forward voltage developed across each LED chain” and “determining respective drive currents needed to achieve a desired luminous flux from each LED chain using the operating forward voltages measured across each LED chain, a table of calibration values and one or more interpolation techniques”. Accordingly, the newly amended claims recited the allowable subject matter as explained in the step 1 above, hence they overcame the cited prior art (Muthu et al (US Patent No. 6,495,964) and Jungwirth et al. (US Patent No. 7,319,298)).
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance by Applicant to define the original patent claims over the art by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims1. Therefore, in the instant case the claim limitations of “supplying a non-operative drive current to each LED chain, one chain at a time, during the short durations of time to measure an operating forward voltage developed across each LED chain” and “determining respective drive currents needed to achieve a desired luminous flux from each LED chain using the operating forward voltages measured across each LED chain, a table of calibration values and one or more interpolation techniques” are surrendered subject matter and some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(C)) It is noted that the reissue claims were not materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. When analyzing a reissue claim for the possibility of impermissible recapture, there are two different types of analysis that must be performed. If the reissue claim “fails” either analysis, recapture exists. First, claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165. Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. The surrendered subject matter, noted above, has been entirely eliminated from new independent reissue claims 22, 30 and 38. It is noted that the added limitations do not materially narrow the patent claims to avoid recapture.
Therefore, broadened independent reissue claims 22, 30 and 38 attempt impermissible recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the ‘990 application. Dependent reissue claims dependent upon the independent claims mentioned above are rejected for similar rationale.
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.
Claims 22-25, 30-33 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg (US Patent No. 7,902,771) in view of Muthu et al (US Publication No. 6,495,964).
With respect to claims 22, 30 and 38, Shteynberg teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting fixture controller (Figure 3, elements 110), comprising: LED driver control circuitry operatively couplable to a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (Figure 3, elements 110, controller 125, MUX 150, sensors 185 equivalent to Vfe (2140) and Temp Sensor (2195), ADC is also described in column 16, lines 3-9 but not illustrated) and , the LED driver control circuitry to: control the plurality of LEDs (Figure 3, 110) to generate an alternating sequence of illumination intervals and measurement intervals (as depicted in Figure 4) such that: for at least a portion of each of the illumination intervals, cause the plurality of LEDs to provide an illumination output of the lighting fixture expected to produce a target color output (19:2-5); and for at least a portion of each of the measurement intervals, measure an output of a first portion of the plurality of LEDs comprising one or more LEDs and cause the remaining portion of the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination (9:17-29 and 17:45-18:5); determine an operating temperature for each of one or more LEDs of the plurality of LEDs (16: 21-35 and Figure 3 wherein the sensors 185 directly feed into controller 125. The cited passage explains that sensors used for measurements can gather information about the junction temperatures of the selected LEDs), and characterize a luminous flux output of each of the one or more LEDs (16: 21-35, wherein “optical output sensed such as brightness, wavelengths emission” corresponds to luminous flux) as a function of a drive current applied to each of the one or more LEDs at the determined operating temperature of each of the one or more LEDs (16: 36-59, wherein the sensed inputs and the characteristics stored are used to determine the appropriate drive currents. Furthermore 3:42-49, 12:59-67 and 24:42-47, wherein optical output is a function of drive current and operating temperature for one or more LEDs); and determine an adjustment to at least one drive current of the respective drive currents for each of the plurality of LEDs so that an actual color output of the lighting fixture during a subsequent illumination interval achieves the target color output (24:8:17 and 42-47, wherein drive current supplied to plurality of LEDs can be adjusted to ensure targeted color output. In other words, adjustment of current is based on target color because if the optical output is not as desired the drive current is adjusted) and provide the determined adjusted drive current to at least one of the plurality of LEDs at the subsequent illumination interval (16:46-59 and 14:65-15:14, wherein feedback means that once the data is collected and compared with the “reference” data, adjustments can be made, such that the drive current can be adjusted accordingly. The” target color” corresponds to an output that the user would like to achieve or maintain).
Shteynberg, however, does not explicitly teach using at least one photodetector for measuring the light output of at least a plurality of the LEDs in the array.
On the other hand, Muthu teaches LED control circuit utilizing a photodetector to measure the light outputs of at least s plurality of the LEDs (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a photodetector, as taught by Muthu, in Shteynberg’s light control circuit, to measure a light output produced by LEDs to ensure that the output is at the desired level, because photodetector is a well know type of sensor to perform this kind of measurement.
With respect to claims 23, 31 and 39, Shteynberg teaches the LED lighting fixture controller, the LED driver control circuitry to further: determine a respective target luminous flux for each of the plurality of LEDs to achieve a target color output: responsive to determination of the target luminous flux for each of the plurality of LEDs, determine a respective target drive current for each of the plurality of LEDs at the determined operating temperature using the characterization of the luminous flux output as a function of applied drive current supplied to each respective LED; and supply the respective target drive current to each of the plurality of LEDs to achieve the target color output during at least one subsequent illumination interval (5: 17-27, wherein drive current is adjusted so that the plurality of LEDs may output intended brightness (i.e. target color output)).
With respect to claims 24, 32 and 40, Shteynberg teaches the LED lighting fixture controller, wherein to characterize the luminous flux output of each respective LEDs as a function of the applied drive current at the determined operating temperature of the respective LED (24: 8-17, wherein temperature and drive current will affect the luminous flux output and increased drive current will result in rise of junction temperature), the LED driver control circuitry to further, for at least a portion of each measurement interval: provide one or more operative drive currents to each respective LED; and receive, from at least one photodetector operatively coupled to the LED driver control circuitry, a signal representative of a luminous flux incident upon the at least one photodetector at each of the one or more operative drive currents (16:21-35, wherein variety of sensors can be used including optical sensors (i.e. photosensor) to sense brightness, wavelength emission, radiant power. According to the passage, drive currents can be applied to the LED string and based on the received feedback (i.e. reading from the sensors), the drive current can be adjusted, thus multiple currents may be applied to the LEDs).
With respect to claims 25, 33 and 41, Shteynberg teaches The LED lighting fixture controller of claim 24, wherein to provide the one or more operative drive currents to each respective LED, the LED driver control circuitry to further, for at least a portion of each measurement interval: provide a plurality of operative drive currents to each respective one of the one or more LEDs (16:21-60, wherein feedback gathered from sensors can be obtained and the drive current is adjusted accordingly to correct desired light output. Furthermore, the cited passage mentions multiple drive currents).
Claims 27, 35 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg in view of Muthu and further in view of Frost et al (US Publication No. 2012/0306379).
With respect to claims 27, 35 and 43, Shteynberg teaches using optical sensors and measuring ambient temperature and adjusting the respective target luminous flux for each respective LED to account for the ambient light level (16:25-59), however he does not explicitly recite that the LED driver control circuitry to further, during at least a portion of each measurement interval: cause the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination; and receive, from the at least one photodetector operatively coupled to the LED driver control circuitry, a signal representative of an ambient light level.
On the other hand, Frost teaches operating LED lighting device wherein during at least a portion of each measurement interval: cause the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination; and receive, from the at least one photodetector operatively coupled to the LED driver control circuitry, a signal representative of an ambient light level (paragraphs [0025]- [0026] and [0058], wherein “dark phase” corresponds to the claimed “cease illumination phase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adopt Frost’s teaching about ceasing the illumination in order to carry out ambient light measurements, in Shteynberg’s LED control circuit, in order to minimize the error by wrongfully mixing up light produced by the LEDs and ambient light concurrently, and carry out more precise and accurate light adjustments.
Claims 28, 36 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg in view of Muthu and further in view of Elder (US Publication No. 2012/0286694).
With respect to claims 28, 36 and 44, Shteynberg teaches the LED lighting fixture controller of claims 24, 32 and 40, however he does not explicitly recite that in order to determine the operating temperature of each respective LED, the LED driver control circuitry to further, for at least a portion of each measurement interval: determine the operating temperature of each respective one of the one or more LEDs using a measured forward voltage across the respective LED.
On the other hand, Elder teaches temperature and power control for LEDs, wherein the circuit determines the operating temperature of each respective one of the one or more LEDs using a measured forward voltage across the respective LED (paragraphs [0033] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adopt Elder’s teaching about utilizing information about forward voltage in order to determine junction temperature in Shteynberg’s LED control, as this was a well-known and efficient method for determining junction temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 26, 29, 34, 37, 42 and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and further contingent upon overcoming rejection under 25 U.S.C. 112b as explained above.
With respect to claims 26, 34 and 42, the prior art of records does not anticipate nor render obvious LED controller as disclosed in claims 24, 33 and 41 and all the preceding claims on which those claims depend, wherein the LED driver control circuitry further, for at least a portion of each measurement interval: provide a first operative drive current at 10% of a maximum drive current of the respective LED, a second operative drive current at 30% of the maximum drive current of the respective LED, and a third operative drive current at 100% of the maximum drive current of the respective LED to each respective one of the one or more LEDs.
With respect to claims 29, 37 and 45, the prior art of records does not anticipate nor render obvious LED controller as disclosed in claims 28, 36 and 44 and all the preceding claims on which those claims depend, wherein the LED driver control circuit determines the operating temperature of each respective one of the one or more LEDs using the measured forward voltage across the respective LED, the LED driver control circuitry to further: determine the operating temperature of at least one of the one or more LEDs using a measured forward voltage across the respective LED at a non-operative drive current.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on August 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument#1: In the first argument on page 9, the Applicant alleges “Applicant notes that the Federal Circuit has consistently and repeatedly determined circuit or circuitry is a term that connotes structure, for example, "when the structure-connoting term 'circuit' is coupled with a description of the circuit's operation, sufficient structural meaning generally will be conveyed to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and §11216 presumptively will not apply." Linear Tech. Corp. V. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Apex, Inc. V. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); accord Massachusetts Institute of Technology V. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Lighting World, Inc. V. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[W]e have held that it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function. Id. at 1359-60." (Emphasis added)). The Federal Circuit has clearly stated "In contrast to the term 'mechanism,' dictionary definitions establish that the term 'circuitry,' by itself, connotes structure." MIT V. Abacus, 462 F.3d 1344 (page 17 of slip opinion) (emphasis added).")”.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner did not find the above argument persuasive because it is true that that “LED driver control circuitry” would be sufficient when generic steps of providing current to LEDs would be performed, however as clearly indicated in the section 112(f) above, for instance independent claim 22, recites steps which go beyond “generic” driving steps, for instance; generating illumination and measurement intervals, conducting measurements, determining an operating temperatures, characterizing luminous flux output and determining respective drive currents. In order to facilitate those actions, there must be a plurality of elements carrying them out and/or an algorithm. The Examiner would like to note that claim 22 does not specifically recite circuitry nor algorithm to perform those steps.
With respect the comments discussing “general purpose computer”, the Examiner would like to note that the paragraph reads “For a computer-implemented means plus function” thus if a claim is not directed to such means, this paragraph does not apply.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the interpretation 112(f) applies herein.
Argument#2: In the second argument on pages 9-10, the Applicant contends “Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of the independent claims 22, 30, and 38 failed to provide prima facie evidence of anticipation for all limitations. Shteynberg may have intervals TA, TB, etc., but there's no indication of the previously claimed "measure an output of a first portion of the plurality of LEDs comprising one or more LEDs and cause the remaining portion of the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination." Both cited portions (9:17-29 and 17:45-18:5) appear to merely indicate one can turn series of LEDs on and off, not specifically to measure a first portion while causing the remaining portion not to illuminate.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that insufficient evidence was provided for "characterize a luminous flux output of each of the one or more LEDs as a function of a drive current applied to each of the one or more LEDs at the determined operating temperature of each of the one or more LEDs."
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner did not find the above argument persuasive. For instance, in column 9, lines 19-22 and column 17, line 54-column 18, line 5, Shteynberg teaches “provides for individually and selectively allowing current to flow through each of the series of LEDs 110.sub.1, 110.sub.2, 110.sub.3, through 110.sub.N, i.e., turning on or off any selected series of LEDs 110.sub.1, 110.sub.2, 110.sub.3, through 110.sub.N.”. Then in column 4, lines 63-67, he further discloses that “in exemplary embodiments, a third multiplexer may be couplable to the plurality of series of light-emitting diodes and coupled to the controller, with the controller being further adapted to control switching of the third multiplexer to a selected series of light-emitting diodes of the plurality of series of light-emitting diodes for measuring a corresponding current through the selected series of light-emitting diodes”. Accordingly, contrary to what the Applicant alleges, Shteynberg teaches selecting a series of LEDs, such that selected series is turned ON and then he also teaches measuring a corresponding current through that selected series LEDs. Consequently, the Examiner maintains that Shteynberg teaches "measure an output of a first portion of the plurality of LEDs comprising one or more LEDs and cause the remaining portion of the plurality of LEDs to cease illumination."
With respect to the “characterization” step, the cited passage (16:36-59), clearly teaches the drive current being adjusted to “compensate for unwanted changes and age drift of the LED system in any area of electrical, optical, thermal or functional performance”. Furthermore, column 3, lines 19-30 and 42-49 or column 12, lines 59-61 recite “In addition, such an LED array driver should provide for local LED regulation, providing local compensation of LED emission due to age and drift of functional parameters, temperature changes of the LED junction, LED production characteristics variation, and variations of devices produced by different manufacturers. Such an LED array driver also should be backwards-compatible with legacy LED control systems” (emphasis added). The process of compensation is possible via “control[ing] current independently for each series of LEDs of the array, for corresponding effective color and brightness control, among other features” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that Shteynberg teaches "characterize[ing] a luminous flux output” (i.e. effective color and brightness) “of each of the one or more LEDs as a function of a drive current applied to each of the one or more LEDs at the determined operating temperature of each of the one or more LEDs."
Conclusion
Claims 22-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and claims 26, 29, 34, 37, 42 and 45 are objected.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA M LIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8445. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 5:30 am - 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184.
All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed:
Patent Center
Patent Center (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center) to file and manage your applications and requests.
By Mail to: Mail Stop Reissue
Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Bulding
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/H.B.P/
Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Applicant’s remarks filed November 19, 2015 – pages 13 and 15
