Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/328,346

LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DRIVING AT LEAST ONE LIGHT SOURCE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
CHAI, RAYMOND REI-YANG
Art Unit
2844
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Orange
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
413 granted / 546 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
580
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 546 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 03/16/2026. In virtue of this request: Claim 2 was previously canceled; Claims 11-14 are newly added; Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended; and thus, Claims 1 and 3-14 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 . Specification The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the abstract. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2015/0359061A1 hereinafter “Adler” in view of Machine Translation of CN106817810A hereinafter “Ye” Regarding claim 1, Adler discloses a method for driving at least one drivable light source (¶32L3-4: first light source [103]; second light source [104]) implemented by a driving device (¶32L3: driver [102]), said method comprising: receiving, from at least one brightness sensor (¶61L2: an ambient sensor), a message including items of information representative of a color of a light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor (¶61L1-14: ambient sensor communicate feedback signals containing information about such lighting condition to controller; lighting characteristic associated with control parameter such as color temperature); determining whether or not the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within a preferred color range associated with said at least one sensor (¶62L1-4: controller use information in feedback signal received from ambient sensor to determine whether actual lighting condition of the space exhibits the target lighting characteristic); and, in response to a determination that this is not the case: sending to at least one drivable light source at least one driving command including color parameters to modify a color emitted by said at least one light source according to said parameters such that the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within or approaches the preferred color range associated with this brightness sensor. (¶62L4-8: if not, controller may adjust the control parameter in its control signal to alter the light output produced by first and second light source until the feedback signal indicate that the target lighting characteristic has been substantially achieved) Adler does not expclitly disclose: determining takes into account an average of a plurality of measurements of the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time. Ye discloses a LED lamp system wherein an average of a color data from a sensor is used to generate control signals for the LED lamps. (Page.2 L3-22: color sensor capture color of required light; repeats process 3 times, and each time to obtain the color data to take the average, calculate the average value; the control module output PWM signal to drive circuit to control the color of the light) It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the ambient sensor providing the feedback signal as disclosed by Adler with the average reading after repeating the reading three times as disclosed by Ye. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the repeated average value provides a more stable data. (Ye Page. 2 L10-11) Regarding claim 8, Adler discloses a driving device (¶32L3: driver [102]), comprising: a communicating module (¶62L1: controller [101]) configured to receive, from at least one brightness sensor (¶61L2: an ambient sensor), a message including items of information representative of a color of a light sensed by said at least one sensor (¶61L1-14: ambient sensor communicate feedback signals containing information about such lighting condition to controller; lighting characteristic associated with control parameter such as color temperature); a controller configured to determine whether or not the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within a preferred color range associated with said at least one sensor (¶62L1-4: controller use information in feedback signal received from ambient sensor to determine whether actual lighting condition of the space exhibits the target lighting characteristic); and in response to a determination that this is not the case, control said communicating module so that it sends to at least one drivable light source at least one driving command including color parameters to modify a color emitted by said at least one light source according to said parameters such that the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within or approaches the preferred color range associated with this brightness sensor. (¶62L4-8: if not, controller may adjust the control parameter in its control signal to alter the light output produced by first and second light source until the feedback signal indicate that the target lighting characteristic has been substantially achieved) Adler does not expclitly disclose: the controller is configured to determine whether or not the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within the preferred color range by taking into account an average of the color of light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time . (¶64L1-15: time dependent representation of lighting characteristics may be determine from lighting measurement take over a specific time period) Ye discloses a LED lamp system wherein an average of a color data from a sensor is used to generate control signals for the LED lamps. (Page.2 L3-22: color sensor capture color of required light; repeats process 3 times, and each time to obtain the color data to take the average, calculate the average value; the control module output PWM signal to drive circuit to control the color of the light) It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the ambient sensor providing the feedback signal as disclosed by Adler with the average reading after repeating the reading three times as disclosed by Ye. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the repeated average value provides a more stable data. (Ye Page. 2 L10-11) Regarding claim 9, Adler in view of Ye hereinafter “Adler/Ye” discloses in Adler the lighting control system, comprising: at least one driving device of claim 8 (as rejected above), and at least one driving device (¶32L3: driver [102])of at least one brightness sensor (¶61L2: an ambient sensor), and at least one drivable light source (¶32L3-4: first light source [103]; second light source [104]). Regarding claim 10, Adler/Ye discloses in Adler a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions (¶17L1-18: instruction recorded on non-transitory computer readable storage medium) which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the method of claim 1. (as rejected above) Regarding claim 11, Adler/Ye discloses in Adler the device of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether or not the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within a preferred color range associated with said at least one sensor comprises comparing the preferred color range associated with said at least one brightness sensor to the average of the plurality of measurements of the color of light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time. (¶62L8-12: controller compare color temperature information in a feedback signal to determine whether the actual lighting condition of an illuminated space exhibits a target color temperature) Regarding claim 12, Adler/Ye discloses in Ye the device of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of measurements of the color of light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time are taken at different times within said period of time. (Page.2 L3-22: color sensor capture color of required light; repeats process 3 times, and each time to obtain the color data to take the average, calculate the average value; the control module output PWM signal to drive circuit to control the color of the light) Regarding claim 13, Adler/Ye discloses in Adler the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether or not the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is within a preferred color range associated with said at least one sensor comprises comparing the preferred color range associated with said at least one brightness sensor to the average of the plurality of measurements of the color of light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time. (¶62L8-12: controller compare color temperature information in a feedback signal to determine whether the actual lighting condition of an illuminated space exhibits a target color temperature) Regarding claim 14, Adler/Ye discloses in Ye the device of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of measurements of the color of light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor over a period of time are taken at different times within said period of time. (Page.2 L3-22: color sensor capture color of required light; repeats process 3 times, and each time to obtain the color data to take the average, calculate the average value; the control module output PWM signal to drive circuit to control the color of the light) Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler/Ye in view of US2019/0229159A1 hereinafter “Wu” Regarding claim 3, Adler/Ye discloses the method of claim 1, Adler/Ye does not explicitly disclose: said parameters of said driving command are determined by a gradient descent. Wu discloses adjusting output of light emitting devices using a color detection circuit and calculation in a gradient descent manner. (¶40L1-24) It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application utilize the gradient adjustment manner disclosed by Wu as the way to adjust the output of the light source disclosed by Adler/Ye. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because gradient descent is an iterative process that finds the best weights and bias that minimizes loss, thus creating a better color output compared to the desired output. Regarding claim 4, Adler/Ye in view of Wu hereinafter “Adler/Ye/Wu” discloses in Wu the method of claim 3, wherein said received items of information representative of the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor are in a first format, said method further comprising converting said items of information into a second color format, said gradient descent being implemented in a color space in accordance with this second color format. (¶40L1-24: calculate set of color coordinate value such as HSV according to RGB data) Regarding claim 5, Adler/Ye/Wu discloses in Wu the method of claim 4, wherein said items of information representative of the color of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor are in the RGB format and converted into the HSV format. (¶40L1-24: calculate set of color coordinate value such as HSV according to RGB data) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler/Ye in view US9,788,373B1 hereinafter “Chowdhury” Regarding claim 6, Adler/Ye discloses the method of claim 1 Adler/Ye does not explicitly disclose: including; on receiving an activation signal coming from a drivable light source, sending to this drivable light source a driving command so that it emits a light with a default color. Chowdhury discloses a lighting system wherein the controller generate a default CCT control signal on start-up. (Claim 10) It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the controller disclosed by Adler/Ye to generate a default CCT control signal on start-up as disclosed by Chowdhury. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to initialize to a known state on every startup prior to any operation. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler/Ye in view US2021/0335108A1 hereinafter “Ewing” Regarding claim 7, Adler/Ye discloses the method of claim 1, Adler/Ye does not explicitly disclose: issuing an alarm upon a determination that a power of the light sensed by said at least one brightness sensor is less than a threshold. Ewing discloses a device wherein the device issues an alarm when a light sensor detects light dropping below a threshold. (¶46: amount of light detected by light sensor drops below some threshold level, go into alarm mode) It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the controller disclosed by Adler/Ye to generate an alarm based on sensor reading falling below a threshold disclosed by Ewing. One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to warn the user that the system is not operating within expected condition. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference, specifically, Ye 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593385
CONTROL METHODS AND CONTROLLERS FOR COORDINATED LIGHTING EFFECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593389
A METHOD OF MERGING TWO LIGHTING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588122
A LIGHTING CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578066
Adaptive Flashlight Control Module
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562463
HIGH-FREQUENCY RADIATION UNIT AND MULTI-FREQUENCY BASE STATION ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+15.9%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 546 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month