DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on January 10, 2024 in which claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending, of which claims 1, 6, and 15 are in independent form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2024, 6/9/2025, and 8/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/409654 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 18/409616 are broader than the claims of 18/409654.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/409616
18/409654
1. A method for operating a computer system, the method comprising: transmitting first and second signals between a device interface and a first device over an elongate conductor,
the second signal including content of higher frequency relative to the first signal; 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.
7. A method for operating a computer system, the method comprising: transmitting first and second signals between a device interface and a first device over an elongate first conductor,
the second signal including content of higher frequency than the first signal;
transmitting a timing signal over an elongate second conductor, between a device interface and the first device, for synchronizing the second signal; and
exposing at least the second signal and the timing signal to a second device distinct from the first device, the first device being substantially non-responsive to the second signal and to the timing signal, wherein at least the first or second elongate conductor conducts bidirectionally between the device interface and the first device.
6. A computer system comprising: an elongate conductor;
a device interface coupled to the elongate conductor 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; 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.
1. A computer system comprising: an elongate first conductor;
a fan controller coupled to the elongate first conductor and configured to: (i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate first conductor, and (ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate first conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency than the fan-control signal, and
(iii) transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal the lighting-control signal;
a fan device coupled to the elongate first and second conductors, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal and to the lighting-clock signal; and a lighting device distinct from the fan device, wherein at least the lighting-control signal and the lighting-clock signal are exposed to the lighting device, and wherein at least the first or second elongate conductor conducts bidirectionally between the fan controller and the fan device.
15. A computer system comprising: an elongate conductor;
a fan controller coupled to the elongate
conductor 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; 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, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal.
1. A computer system comprising: an elongate first conductor;
a fan controller coupled to the elongate first conductor and configured to:
(i) transmit a fan-control signal over the elongate first conductor, and (ii) transmit a lighting-control signal over the elongate first conductor, the lighting-control signal including content of higher frequency than the fan-control signal, and
(iii) transmit a lighting-clock signal over the elongate second conductor for synchronizing the lighting-control signal the lighting-control signal;
a fan device coupled to the elongate first and second conductors, the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal and to the lighting-clock signal; and a lighting device distinct from the fan device,
wherein at least the lighting-control signal and the lighting-clock signal are exposed to the lighting device, and wherein at least the first or second elongate conductor conducts bidirectionally between the fan controller and the fan device.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the first and second signals are control signals, wherein the device interface is a device controller, and wherein the first and second signals are transmitted from the device interface to the first device.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein the first and second signals are control signals, wherein the device interface is a device controller, and wherein the first and second signals are transmitted from the device interface to the first device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially non-responsive” in independent claims 1, 6, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially non-responsive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill may believe that receiving and forwarding data constitutes “substantially non-responsive,” while another of ordinary skill in the art may believe that modifying the data slightly constitutes “substantially non-responsive,” while even another of ordinary skill in the art may believe that modifying the data and forwarding the modified data constitutes “substantially non-responsive.” The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. The remaining claims inherit this rejection based on their dependencies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “is proximate to” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is proximate to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill may believe that a certain small physical distance between devices makes one device “proximate to” another, while another of ordinary skill may have a different threshold for a physical distance between devices makes one device “proximate to” another. Also, one of ordinary skill may believe that a direct connection between devices makes one device “proximate to” another, while another of ordinary skill may believe that an indirect connection between devices may still include one device being “proximate to” another. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 – 12 recite the limitation "the exposure component" in line 1 of claims 10 and 11 and in line 2 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 9 introduces “an exposure component.” These antecedent basis issues may be fixed by amending claims 10 – 12 to depend from claim 9.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant’s [0100] ends with “the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal.” This appears to be a typo. Applicant’s specification describes several times how the fan device is substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal. Also, Applicant’s specification describes several times how the lighting device is substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal. It appears from Applicant’s description that the fan device should be responsive to the fan signal. As such, this paragraph appears to contain a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim ends with “the fan device being substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal.” This appears to be a typo. Applicant’s specification describes several times how the fan device is substantially non-responsive to the lighting-control signal. Also, Applicant’s specification describes several times how the lighting device is substantially non-responsive to the fan-control signal. It appears from Applicant’s description that the fan device should be responsive to the fan signal. As such, this paragraph appears to contain a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, 9, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan, U.S. Patent Application 2022/0312573 (hereinafter referred to as Tan) (from Applicant’s IDS).
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 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 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”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan 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”).
Tan does not appear 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 and Verge are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling for a computer fan.
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 Verge before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan 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 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 ‘Flat Flex’ by Flexible Circuit, archived on 12/2/2023 at flexiblecircuit.com (hereinafter referred to as Flexible Circuit).
As per claim 7, Tan does not 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 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 and Flexible Circuit before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan 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 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 Mackown et al., WIPO Publication WO 2022/153025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mackown).
As per claim 8, Tan does not 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 and Mackown are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling of lighting 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 and Mackown before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan 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 to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, Tan does not 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 and Mackown are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling of lighting 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 and Mackown before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan 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 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 Carel et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0077519 (hereinafter referred to as Carel).
As per claim 11, Tan does not 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 so that the exposure component includes a shift register.
Tan and Carel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is connection and signaling of lighting 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 and Carel before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan 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 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 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of ‘Universal Serial Bus Specification – Revision 2.0’ (hereinafter referred to as USB).
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.”
However, compound devices are known in the computer arts. For example, USB discloses compound devices being capable of receiving signals and exposing the received signal to an appropriate function (page 23 monitor with hub receives audio data and passes the data to a speaker. Section 4.8.2.2 “a physical package may implement multiple functions and an embedded hub with a single USB cable. This is known as a compound device. A compound device appears to the host as a hub with one or more non-removable USB devices.” Section 5.2.3 “Multiple functions may be packaged together in what appears to be a single physical device. For example, a keyboard and a trackball might be combined in a single package. Inside the package, the individual functions are permanently attached to a hub and it is the internal hub that is connected to the USB. When multiple functions are combined with a hub in a single package, they are referred to as a compound device”).
Thus, it is seen that two separate devices may be combined into a compound device being configured to expose a control signal to an appropriate function/non-removable device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such a configuration in the 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.”
As with Tan, USB’s compound device provides for multiple devices to be connected to a single interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try implementing the compound device idea of USB in Tan’s multiple device/function system.
Tan and USB 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 and USB before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan to include the teachings of USB so that a fan device coupled to the elongate conductor is configured to expose at least the lighting-control signal to a lighting device.
The motivation for doing so would have been to try the compound device approach of USB instead of Tan’s parallel approach of Fig. 3. Having the lighting elements connect in series with the fan and controller would provide for a single path for all fan and light data. This could reduce pin count requirements for the controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine USB 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 proximate to the lighting device” (Figs. 2 and 3 fan 110 is proximate 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).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of USB, 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 USB 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, USB, 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, USB, and Adler before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and USB 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 USB 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).
Neither Tan nor USB 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, USB, 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, USB, and Adler before him or her, to modify the teachings of Tan and USB 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 USB to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Applications 20180314297 and 20180192493 teach computer fans with LEDs.
U.S. Patent Application 20190354502 teaches a compound device with a hub for connecting to further devices.
U.S. Patent 10,729,011 is the granted patent to Carel.
U.S. Patent Application 20150214977 teaches a DAC for controlling LEDs.
WIPO Publication WO 2010/132938 A1 teaches a compound device with a hub for connecting to further devices.
Machine Translation of Chinese Patent Application CN 102016751 A teaches a DAC for controlling LEDs.
Machine Translation of Chinese Patent Application CN 112416447 A teaches a compound device.
‘Driving LEDs with Both Analog and PWM Dimming - Technical Article’ by Issac Hsu, OCTOBER 2015.
‘Synthetic Instruments – Concepts and Applications’ Chapter 2 by C.T. Nadovich teaches multiplexing techniques including Frequency Division Multiplexing.
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