DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0086554 to Suzuki in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0057437 A1 to Kato et al.
As to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a light emission control device comprising at least one processor that performs dimming control on a light emitting device of a light emitter by interrupt processing (Fig. 2-3B, paragraphs 0041 and 0052-0059, where arithmetic circuit sections (100, 200) are processors that perform dimming control on light source (310), which is a light emitter (LED)).
Suzuki is deficient in disclosing wherein the processor activates a monitoring function of a heavy load state of the light emitter while performing the dimming control.
However, Kato discloses wherein the processor activates a monitoring function of a heavy load state of the light emitter while performing the dimming control (Fig. 5, 10 and 11, paragraphs 0108-0114 and 0177-0208, where a heavy load state monitoring operation is performed in step (S5) and illumination of the LCD (121d) is controlled).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emission control device as taught by Suzuki by including a processor activating a monitoring function of a heavy load state as taught by Kato. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to reduce power consumption (Kato, paragraph 0198).
As to claim 2, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein the processor ends the dimming control in the interrupt processing (Fig. 4, paragraph 0062, where dimming control is interrupted in step (S118)).
As to claim 3, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein the processor
starts the monitoring function of the heavy load state of the light emission control device to start the dimming control (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0054-0055, where dimming control is started in steps (S102, S104, S106)),
sets, in the interrupt processing at the end of the dimming control, an end request to end the monitoring function (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0056-0060, where in steps (S108, S110, S112, S114) the ending of dimming control is performed), and
based on the end request, ends the monitoring function in normal action control other than the interrupt processing (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0060-0062, where monitoring is ended in step (S116) until interruption is performed in step (S118)).
As to claim 4, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein the processor:
obtains a reception signal corresponding to a predetermined input operation on an input interface (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraph 0054, where in step (S102) the device is turned on), and
performs the dimming control for a set time in response to the predetermined input operation on the input interface (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0055-0060, where dimming control is performed in steps (S104, S106, S108, S110, S112, S114)).
As to claim 5, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein the processor:
determines, in normal action control other than the interrupt processing, whether a need to stop the dimming control before the set time elapses exists, and
stops the dimming control in response to the existence of the need (Fig. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0055-0060, where in steps (S104, S108, S114) it is determined whether dimming control needs to stop).
As to claim 6, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein the light emitting device is a light emitting diode (Fig. 3A, paragraph 0041, where light source (310) is a plurality of LEDs).
As to claim 7, Suzuki discloses an electronic timepiece comprising:
the light emission control device according to claim 1 (Fig. 2-3B, paragraphs 0040-0041, where light source section (300) performs control of light source (310)); and
the light emitting device on which the processor performs the dimming control (Fig. 2-3B, paragraphs 0052-0059, where arithmetic circuit sections (100, 200) are processors that perform dimming control on light source (310)).
As to claim 8, Suzuki and Kato disclose limitations similar to claim 1. In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 1.
As to claims 9-13, Suzuki discloses limitations similar to claims 2-6, respectively.
As to claim 14, Suzuki and Kato disclose limitations similar to claim 1. In addition, Suzuki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform dimming control (Fig. 2, paragraphs 0032 and 0052-0059, where memory section (140) is a storage medium). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 1.
As to claim 15, Suzuki is deficient in disclosing the light emission control device, wherein the monitoring function of the heavy load state comprises monitoring a decrease in an input voltage of power that is supplied from a battery of the light emitter to the processor.
However, Kato discloses the light emission control device, wherein the monitoring function of the heavy load state comprises monitoring a decrease in an input voltage of power that is supplied from a battery of the light emitter to the processor (Fig. 10 and 11, paragraphs 0177-0208, where the control unit (13e) monitors the decrease in an input voltage from secondary battery (2) via voltage step-down circuit (12)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 1.
As to claim 16, Suzuki discloses the light emission control device, wherein, as the dimming control, the processor increases or decreases a luminous intensity of the light emitter multiple times such that a change in the luminous intensity of the light emitter becomes uniform (Fig. 4, paragraphs 0057-0060, where the intensity is uniform in steps (S108, S114)).
As to claims 17 and 19, Suzuki is deficient in disclosing limitations similar to claim 15. However, Kato discloses similar limitations. In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 1.
As to claims 18 and 20, Suzuki discloses limitations similar to claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEETA YODICHKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
ANEETA YODICHKAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/ANEETA YODICHKAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627