DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication filed on 6/3/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending, of which claims 1, 6, and 15 are in independent form.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/3/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on application 18/409654 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
In light of applicant’s amendments to the specification, the examiner withdraws the previous objection to the specification.
Claim Objections
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the examiner withdraws the previous objection to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of applicant’s amendments to claims 10 – 12 and 19, the examiner withdraws the previous rejection to claims 10 – 12 and 19.
However, in regards to the previous rejection to claims 1 – 20 under 35 USC 112(b), the examiner maintains that the phrase ‘substantially non-responsive’ is not clear. Applicant’s specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Applicant refers to paragraphs [0040] and [0065]. These paragraphs do not clarify the bounds of ‘substantially non-responsive.’ Applicant concludes the argument by stating
in view of the specification the term "substantially non-responsive" indicates that a device, such as a fan device, does not respond to a signal that is meant to control another device, such as a lighting device, to the degree that the other device responds to the signal. As such, Applicant submits that the usage of substantially non-responsive is clear.
The examiner disagrees. ‘Substantially non-responsive’ may be considered by one of ordinary skill to be simply receiving and passing the signal. Alternatively, ‘substantially non-responsive’ may be considered by one of ordinary skill to be removing header information, parity information, checksums, etc. while maintaining the data payload. Further still, ‘substantially non-responsive’ may be considered by one of ordinary skill to include any and all response to a signal that is different “to the degree that the other device responds to the signal” (as argued by Applicant). One of ordinary skill would not understand the metes and bounds of the phrase ‘substantially non-responsive’ in light of Applicant’s description and claims.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, U.S. Patent Application 2022/0312573 (hereinafter referred to as Tan) (from Applicant’s IDS) in view of Evans, U.S. Patent Application 2010/0332983 (hereinafter referred to as Evans).
Referring to claim 1, Tan discloses “A method for operating a computer system” (Abstract electronic device and driving method), “the method comprising: transmitting first and second signals between a device interface and a first device over an elongate conductor” (Figs. 2 and 3 TI and TT are equivalent to “a device interface” that receives SD_FAN and SC signals. Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device.” Note that there is inherently a conductor that connects the input signals of Fig. 3 to an external logic that is providing the signals. This is also seen in Tan at [0040] “For example, the control signal SC may be provided by a signal generator (not shown). The signal generator may be connected to the controller 230 through the signal transmission terminal TT”), “the second signal including content of higher frequency relative to the first signal” ([0033] SD_FAN2 is a driving signal including a plurality of driving signals of different frequencies, SD_LG and SD_FAN3 are encoded into SD_FAN2. A frequency of the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG is greater than a frequency of SD_FAN3); “and exposing at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device” “the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal” (Fig. 3 SD_LG provided to the light-emitting element group 120 (“a second device”) and [0033] – [0034] “the light-emitting element group 120 is driven by the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG.” The controller 130 and the fan 110 are “substantially non-responsive to the second [SD_LG] signal”).
As seen in Tan, the device 100 receives fan driving signals SD_FAN and control signal SC and provides FAN control signals to fan 110 and light-emitting driving signal SD_LG to the light-emitting element group 120 (Fig. 3). As such, Tan does not appear to explicitly disclose “and exposing at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device, wherein the first device is exposed to the first signal and the second signal, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal.”
However, providing a serial connection between devices and passing signals is known in the art. For example, Evans discloses another method for communication wherein a device receives signals (Fig. 1 media player 20 and [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown)). Evans discloses “exposing at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device, wherein the first device is exposed to the first signal and the second signal, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal” (Figs. 1 – 2 media player 20 receives data signals and transmits a signal to device 30. A ‘first signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of a list 161 from the computer 10 to the media player 20 as described at [0013]. A ‘second signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of the requested file streamed to the media player 20 and passed on to the device 30 as described at [0015] - [0016]. (Evans D/A conversion happening at the media player 20 or at the device 30. Therefore, the media player 20 is being 'substantially non-responsive to the signal'). [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown). [0017] can used wired connection between the media player 20 and device 30).
Tan and Evans are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signal passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan and Evans before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan to include the teachings of Evans so that both the fan signals and LED signals pass through the fan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modularity to the system so that LED elements could be added and/or swapped without having to replace the fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Evans with Tan to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 3, Tan discloses “at least one of the first or second signal is a sensory signal, wherein the sensory signal is transmitted from the first device to the device interface” (Fig. 2 FG and TT along with [0039] signal transmission terminal TT of this embodiment is a bidirectional transmission terminal).
As per claim 4, Tan discloses “filtering and/or demultiplexing the second signal” ([0033] the controller 130 may separate the third fan driving signal SD_FAN3 and the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG from the second fan driving signal SD_FAN2 based on the obvious frequency difference).
As per claim 5, Tan discloses “the first and second signals are transmitted bidirectionally” (Figs. 2 and 7, the TT terminal being bidirectional. This leads to a situation wherein the first signal TI/FAN signal is being received and the TT signal is being transmitted. This is equivalent to “the first and second signals are transmitted bidirectionally”).
Referring to claim 6, Tan discloses “A computer system comprising: an elongate conductor; a device interface coupled to the elongate conductor” (Figs. 2 and 3 TI and TT are equivalent to “a device interface” that receives SD_FAN and SC signals. Note that there is inherently a conductor that connects the input signals of Fig. 3 to an external logic that is providing the signals. This is also seen in Tan at [0040] “For example, the control signal SC may be provided by a signal generator (not shown). The signal generator may be connected to the controller 230 through the signal transmission terminal TT”) “and configured to: (i) transmit or receive a first signal over the elongate conductor, and (ii) transmit or receive a second signal over the elongate conductor, the second signal including content of higher frequency relative to the first signal” ([0033] SD_FAN2 is a driving signal including a plurality of driving signals of different frequencies, SD_LG and SD_FAN3 are encoded into SD_FAN2. A frequency of the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG is greater than a frequency of SD_FAN3); “and a first device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device,” “the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal” (Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device” and the light-emitting element group 120 is equivalent to “a second device.” Fig. 3 SD_LG provided to the light-emitting element group 120 and [0033] – [0034] “the light-emitting element group 120 is driven by the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG.” The controller 130 and the fan 110 are “substantially non-responsive to the second [SD_LG] signal”).
As seen in Tan, the device 100 receives fan driving signals SD_FAN and control signal SC and provides FAN control signals to fan 110 and light-emitting driving signal SD_LG to the light-emitting element group 120 (Fig. 3). As such, Tan does not appear to explicitly disclose “a first device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device, wherein the first device is exposed to the first signal and the second signal, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal.”
However, providing a serial connection between devices and passing signals is known in the art. For example, Evans discloses another method for communication wherein a device receives signals (Fig. 1 media player 20 and [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown)). Evans discloses “a first device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the second signal to a second device distinct from the first device, wherein the first device is exposed to the first signal and the second signal, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal” (Figs. 1 – 2 media player 20 receives data signals and transmits a signal to device 30. A ‘first signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of a list 161 from the computer 10 to the media player 20 as described at [0013]. A ‘second signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of the requested file streamed to the media player 20 and passed on to the device 30 as described at [0015] - [0016]. (Evans D/A conversion happening at the media player 20 or at the device 30. Therefore, the media player 20 is being 'substantially non-responsive to the signal'). [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown). [0017] can used wired connection between the media player 20 and device 30).
Tan and Evans are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signal passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan and Evans before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan to include the teachings of Evans so that both the fan signals and LED signals pass through the fan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modularity to the system so that LED elements could be added and/or swapped without having to replace the fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Evans with Tan to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 9, Tan discloses “an exposure component configured to pass at least the second signal between the first device and the second device” (Note that in Applicant’s [0037] “In some examples exposure component 242 may include nothing more than a contact to interdevice conductor 244.” As such, Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device” and the light-emitting element group 120 is equivalent to “a second device.” Fig. 3 SD_LG provided to the light-emitting element group 120. Tan’s controller 130 inherently includes a contact to provide the signal SD_LG to light-emitting element group 120).
As per claim 10, Tan discloses “the exposure component is coupled to the first device or to the second device” (Note that in Applicant’s [0037] “In some examples exposure component 242 may include nothing more than a contact to interdevice conductor 244.” As such, Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device” and the light-emitting element group 120 is equivalent to “a second device.” Fig. 3 SD_LG provided to the light-emitting element group 120. Tan’s controller 130 inherently includes a contact to provide the signal SD_LG to light-emitting element group 120, the contact is coupled to the controller 130 and the light-emitting element group 120).
As per claim 13, Tan discloses “the second signal corresponds to a serial protocol” ([0023] “the light-emitting elements LD1 to LDn are connected in series with each other. Notably, with the light-emitting elements LD1 to LDn connected in series, the number of connection pins between the light-emitting element group 120 and the controller 130 may be reduced”).
Referring to claim 15, Tan discloses “A computer system comprising: an elongate conductor; a fan controller coupled to the elongate conductor” (Figs. 2 and 3 TI and TT receive SD_FAN and SC signals. Note that there is inherently a conductor that connects the input signals of Fig. 3 to an external logic that is providing the signals. This is also seen in Tan at [0040] “For example, the control signal SC may be provided by a signal generator (not shown). The signal generator may be connected to the controller 230 through the signal transmission terminal TT.” Controller 130 is equivalent to a “fan controller”) “and configured to: (i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate conductor, and (ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency relative to the fan-control signal” ([0033] SD_FAN2 is a driving signal including a plurality of driving signals of different frequencies, SD_LG and SD_FAN3 are encoded into SD_FAN2. A frequency of the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG is greater than a frequency of SD_FAN3); “and a fan device coupled to the elongate conductor” (Fig. 3 fan 110 is connected to controller 130, which is connected to TI and TT terminals).
Tan also discloses the device 100 being “configured to expose at least the lighting-control signal to a lighting device distinct from the fan device, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal” (Fig. 3 and [0033] – [0034] light-emitting element group 120 is driven by the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG. The controller 130 and the fan 110 are “substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control [SD_LG] signal”).
Applicant’s claim requires a fan controller as well as a fan device, the fan device exposing the lighting signal to a lighting device. Tan does not appear to explicitly disclose “and a fan device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the lighting-control signal to a lighting device distinct from the fan device, wherein the fan device is exposed to the fan-control signal and the lighting-control signal.”
However, providing a serial connection between devices and passing signals is known in the art. For example, Evans discloses another method for communication wherein a device receives signals (Fig. 1 media player 20 and [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown)). Evans discloses “a” first “device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the” second “signal to a” second “device distinct from the” first “device, wherein the” first “device is exposed to the” first “signal and the” second “signal, the” first “device being substantially non-responsive to the" second “signal” (Figs. 1 – 2 media player 20 receives data signals and transmits a signal to device 30. A ‘first signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of a list 161 from the computer 10 to the media player 20 as described at [0013]. A ‘second signal’ may be equivalent to the transmission of the requested file streamed to the media player 20 and passed on to the device 30 as described at [0015] - [0016]. (Evans D/A conversion happening at the media player 20 or at the device 30. Therefore, the media player 20 is being 'substantially non-responsive to the signal'). [0013] the media player 20 and computer 10 may communicate with each other via signals transmitted over a conventional cable (not shown). [0017] can used wired connection between the media player 20 and device 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the message passing ideas of Evans with the Fan/LED system of Tan so that the system includes “a fan device coupled to the elongate conductor and configured to expose at least the lighting-control signal to a lighting device distinct from the fan device, wherein the fan device is exposed to the fan-control signal and the lighting-control signal.”
Tan and Evans are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signal passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan and Evans before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan to include the teachings of Evans so that both the fan signals and LED signals pass through the fan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modularity to the system so that LED elements could be added and/or swapped without having to replace the fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Evans with Tan to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 16, Tan discloses “the lighting device is responsive to the higher-frequency content of the lighting-control signal” ([0033] SD_FAN2 is a driving signal including a plurality of driving signals of different frequencies, SD_LG and SD_FAN3 are encoded into SD_FAN2. A frequency of the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG is greater than a frequency of SD_FAN3).
As per claim 19, Tan discloses “the fan device is adjacent to the lighting device” (Figs. 2 and 3 fan 110 is adjacent to the lighting-emitting element group 120).
As per claim 20, Tan discloses “the fan-control signal is a pulse-width modulated signal configured to influence a rotation speed of a fan rotor of the fan device” ([0026] Based on a duty cycle of one of the first fan driving signal SD_FAN1 and the third fan driving signal SD_FAN3, the fan 110 may provide a fan rotation speed corresponding to the duty cycle).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Evans, further in view of Verge, U.S. Patent 7,141,950 (hereinafter referred to as Verge) (from Applicant’s IDS).
As per claim 2, Tan discloses “the first and second signals are control signals” “and wherein the first and second signals are transmitted from the device interface to the first device” (Figs. 2 and 3 TI and TT receives SD_FAN and SC signals. Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device.” Note that there is inherently a conductor that connects the input signals of Fig. 3 to an external logic that is providing the signals. This is also seen in Tan at [0040] “For example, the control signal SC may be provided by a signal generator (not shown). The signal generator may be connected to the controller 230 through the signal transmission terminal TT”).
Neither Tan nor Evans appears to explicitly disclose “wherein the device interface is a device controller.”
However, as above, Tan teaches “For example, the control signal SC may be provided by a signal generator (not shown). The signal generator may be connected to the controller 230 through the signal transmission terminal TT” ([0040]).
Further, Verge discloses “wherein the device interface is a device controller” (Fig. 2 system controller 21 sending signals to fan controller 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a “device controller” external to the device 100 of Fig. 3 for transmitting the first and second signals to the controller 130 (“a first device”).
Tan, Evans, and Verge are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Verge before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Verge so that the device interface is a device controller.
Having multiple controllers/logic/processors etc. in a system is known in the art. This would provide for cheaper, simpler controllers working together instead of one or more multi-function controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Verge with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Evans, further in view of ‘Flat Flex’ by Flexible Circuit, archived on 12/2/2023 at flexiblecircuit.com (hereinafter referred to as Flexible Circuit).
As per claim 7, neither Tan nor Evans appear to explicitly disclose “the elongate conductor comprises a flexible conductive film printed or otherwise applied on a flexible dielectric film.”
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize virtually any conductor technology for the connections of Tan. Flexible Circuit discloses conductors “compris[ing] a flexible conductive film printed or otherwise applied on a flexible dielectric film” (page 1 Flat flex cables used for holding components or simply as a connector between circuits. Page 5 materials include flat copper conductors connected via adhesive to insulators such as PEN and PET).
Tan, Evans, and Flexible Circuit are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling of electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Flexible Circuit before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Flexible Circuit so that the elongate conductor comprises a flexible conductive film printed or otherwise applied on a flexible dielectric film.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize the ability to fold into nearly any shape, evenly distributing stress especially when compared to traditional cabling (as stated by Flexible Circuit in the first paragraph of page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Flexible Circuit with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Evans, further in view of Mackown et al., WIPO Publication WO 2022/153025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mackown).
As per claim 8, neither Tan nor Evans appear to explicitly disclose “the device interface comprises at least one general-purpose input-output (GPIO) microcontroller interface.”
However, Mackown discloses another lighting element connection wherein “the device interface comprises at least one general-purpose input-output (GPIO) microcontroller interface” ([0258]-[0261] WS2812 LEDs are driven by a proprietary pulse-width serial format, program transmits on GPIO 0).
Tan, Evans, and Mackown are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Mackown before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Mackown so that the device interface comprises at least one general-purpose input-output (GPIO) microcontroller interface.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize general purpose input/output (GPIO) pins, which can be used for a variety of purposes, such as transmitting or receiving data using a variety of interface standards or controlling external devices (as stated by Mackown at [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mackown with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, neither Tan nor Evans appear to explicitly disclose “the second signal corresponds to a WS281x protocol.”
However, Mackown discloses “the second signal corresponds to a WS281x protocol” ([0257] WS2812 LEDs are driven by a proprietary pulse-width serial format).
Tan, Evans, and Mackown are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Mackown before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Mackown so that the second signal corresponds to a WS281x protocol.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a known LED protocol instead of creating a proprietary protocol for the lighting elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mackown with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Evans, further in view of Carel et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0077519 (hereinafter referred to as Carel).
As per claim 11, neither Tan nor Evans appear to explicitly disclose “the exposure component includes a shift register.”
However, Carel discloses another LED controlling method including “a shift register” ([0019] LEDs serially addressable using ws2812, using a serial shift register).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of Applicant’s filing to combine Carel with Tan and Evans so that the exposure component includes a shift register.
Tan, Evans, and Carel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling passing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Carel before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Carel so that the exposure component includes a shift register.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify design of the circuit by using a shift register and daisy chained LEDs (as stated by Carel at [0019])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Carel with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 12, Tan discloses “at least one interdevice conductor coupled to the exposure component and to at least one of the first or second device” (Note that in Applicant’s [0037] “In some examples exposure component 242 may include nothing more than a contact to interdevice conductor 244.” As such, Figs. 2 and 3 controller 130 is equivalent to “a first device” and the light-emitting element group 120 is equivalent to “a second device.” Fig. 3 SD_LG provided to the light-emitting element group 120. Tan’s controller 130 inherently includes a contact to provide the signal SD_LG to light-emitting element group 120).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Evans, as applied to claims above, further in view of Adler et al., U.S. Patent 7,038,402 (hereinafter referred to as Adler).
As per claim 17, Tan discloses “the lighting device” “comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes” ([0023] “light-emitting element group 120 includes a plurality of light-emitting elements LD1 to LDn. The light-emitting elements LD1 to LDn may each be realized by a light-emitting diode (LED), a micro LED, an organic LED (OLED), or any other element. In this embodiment, the light-emitting elements LD1 to LDn are connected in series with each other”).
Neither Tan nor Evans appears to explicitly disclose “one or more polychromatic lamps.”
However, Adler discloses “one or more polychromatic lamps comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes” (column 2 lines 3 – 5 control over a driving current of color LEDs).
Tan, Evans, and Adler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling for peripheral devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Adler before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Adler so that the lighting device comprises one or more polychromatic lamps comprising a plurality of light-emitting diodes.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a more enjoyable interface for a user, by controlling the LEDs to output many different colors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Adler with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 18, Tan discloses “the lighting-control signal is a multiplexed, digital signal, which is demultiplexed” “to drive each of the plurality of light-emitting diodes” ([0033] the controller 130 may separate the third fan driving signal SD_FAN3 and the light-emitting driving signal string SD_LG from the second fan driving signal SD_FAN2 based on the obvious frequency difference).
Also, Evans discloses the media player including D/A conversion ([0016]).
Neither Tan nor Evans appears to explicitly disclose the light-control signal is “converted to analog form.”
However, Adler discloses controlling LEDs including “convert[ing] to analog form” (column 2 lines 32 – 36 digital-to-analog converters for the currently color of the color LEDs in order to achieve linear and exponential control over a current to drive said color LED).
Tan, Evans, and Adler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling for peripheral devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tan, Evans, and Adler before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and Evans to include the teachings of Adler so that the light-control signal is converted to analog form.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid any flicker associated with a PWM signal for LED control (Issac Hsu ‘Driving LEDs with Both Analog and PWM Dimming’ provided as an evidentiary reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Adler with Tan and Evans to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights