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 22-25, 27-28, 30-33, 35-36, 38-41 and 43-44 are rejected.
Claims 26, 29, 34, 37, 42 and 45 are objected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 17, 2026 was filed after the non-final rejection mailed on September 16, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function (e.g., “means for storing data”), but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. In In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the court stated:
Those cases involved specific functions that would need to be implemented by programming a general purpose computer to convert it into a special purpose computer capable of performing those specified functions. … By contrast, in the seven claims identified above, Katz has not claimed a specific function performed by a special purpose computer, but has simply recited the claimed functions of ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing.’ Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ discussed below, those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions. Those seven claims do not run afoul of the rule against purely functional claiming, because the functions of ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing’ are coextensive with the structure disclosed, i.e., a general purpose processor.).
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338 (“Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 P 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’ WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349.”) An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47 (Fed. Cir.1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-25, 30-33 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shteynberg et al (US Patent No. 7,902,771), referred to hereinafter as Shteynberg.
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: 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 24:42-47, wherein optical output is a function of drive current and operating temperature for one or more LEDs); and determine respective drive current for each of the plurality of LEDs based on 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).
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).
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 27, 35 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteynberg 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 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 February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first argument on page 9, the Applicant alleges “Even if the claims just recited "control circuitry," it would convey sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art,1 1 and the presently claimed LED driver control circuitry has a well-understood meaning to one of ordinary skill in the LED lighting art. Reconsideration is respectfully requested”.
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. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the interpretation 112(f) applies herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779.
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. Visit the EFS-Web and Private PAIR Retirement (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/efs-web-and-private-pair-be-retired) and Patent Center Information pages for more information.
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
Patent Center has 100% of the functionality of EFS-Web and Private PAIR, and is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. Attend a transition to Patent Center Training session (https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/patent-center) to learn more about filing and managing patent applications.
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992