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 .
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of November 24, 2025. Claims 1-11 are presented for examination, with Claim 1 being the only one in independent form.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,546,981 (“Peng”) in view of WO2015/001444A1 (“Holtman”).
Regarding Claim 1, Peng discloses a method of controlling a light-emitting diode light string (Abstract, Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 45-64), the light-emitting diode light string comprising a plurality of light-emitting diode modules (LED11-LEDMN) and a control unit (100), the method comprising steps of:
executing an automatic encoding procedure (col. 4, lines 45-49): providing an encoding signal by the control unit (100) for the plurality of light-emitting diode modules (LED11-LEDMN) to determine the sequence on the light-emitting diode light string to complete the automatic encoding (Fig. 8; col. 10, line 64 to col. 11, line 23).
Peng fails to specifically disclose executing a device linking procedure: linking a mobile device to the control unit,
executing an image positioning procedure: operating an image capture unit of the mobile device to capture images of locations of the light-emitting diode modules, and
executing a light control procedure: operating the mobile device to provide a light control signal to the control unit so as to control specified lighting actions of the specified light-emitting diode modules by the control unit according to the light control signal.
However, Holtman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches executing a device linking procedure (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; page 6, lines 1-8): linking a mobile device (6) to the control unit (8),
executing an image positioning procedure (using image analysis module 16): operating an image capture unit of the mobile device to capture images of locations (camera 14) of the light-emitting diode modules (12), and
executing a light control procedure: operating the mobile device (6) to provide a light control signal to the control unit (8) so as to control specified lighting actions of the specified light-emitting diode modules (12) by the control unit according to the light control signal (page 6, lines 1-6; page 7, lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, to have provided lighting system as disclosed by Peng with the lighting system having a mobile device control as taught by Holtman, in order to use the camera 14 of the mobile device 14 to control an array of LEDs 12, as evidenced by Holtman (page 6, lines 1-6; page 7, lines 4-11).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein in the image positioning procedure (using the image analysis module 16 of Holtman), a location information of the locations of the plurality of light-emitting diode modules is generated according to the results of capturing images (page 7, lines 4-19; page 8, lines 12-22 of Holtman).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein the location information is a graphical information or a textual information (page 7, lines 4-19; page 8, lines 12-22 of Holtman).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein in the light control procedure, specified lighting actions of specified light-emitting diode modules are controlled (page 6, lines 1-6; page 7, lines 4-11 of Holtman).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein the plurality of light-emitting diode modules forms a series-connected light-emitting diode light string, and the automatic encoding procedure is a series-connected automatic encoding procedure correspondingly (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 28-44 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein in the series-connected automatic encoding procedure (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 28-44 of Peng), the sequence of the plurality of light-emitting diode modules is determined according to different time difference values to achieve the automatic encoding (Fig. 8; col. 10, line 64 to col. 11, line 23 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches initially controlling a working voltage of each of the light-emitting diode modules to less than an identification voltage to build a start reference time (Fig. 5; col. 6, line 2-29 of Peng), and
controlling the working voltage of each of the light-emitting diode modules to gradually rise, and generating a plurality of time difference values from the start reference time when the working voltage rises to the identification voltage after the light-emitting diode module operates (Fig. 5; col. 6, line 2-29 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein the time difference values are compared with a plurality of time difference ranges to determine the sequence of the light-emitting diode modules (Fig. 5; col. 6, line 2-29 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein the plurality of light-emitting diode modules forms a parallel-connected light-emitting diode light string, and the automatic encoding procedure is a parallel-connected automatic encoding procedure correspondingly (Figs. 2-3; col. 4, line 4 to col. 5, line 18 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches wherein in the parallel-connected automatic encoding procedure (Figs. 2-3; col. 4, line 4 to col. 5, line 18 of Peng), the sequence of the plurality of light-emitting diode modules is determined according to different voltages generated by the plurality of light-emitting diode modules to achieve the automatic encoding (Fig. 8; col. 10, line 64 to col. 11, line 23 of Peng).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Peng in view of Holtman, as applied to Claim 1, further teaches connecting to the plurality of light-emitting diode modules through a power wire having a plurality of wire resistances, and each light-emitting diode module comprising an impedance component providing an impedance characteristic (Figs. 4A-C; col. 5, lines 19-60 of Peng),
receiving a supply power by the plurality of light-emitting diode modules (Vdd of Peng), and
generating different voltages on the plurality of light-emitting diode modules by the supply power passing through the plurality of wire resistances and the impedance components so that the plurality of light-emitting diode modules is encoded (Fig. 8; col. 10, line 64 to col. 11, line 23 of Peng).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, the examiner is thankful to Applicant’s representative for the detailed description and characterization of the applied primary reference, Peng, and the secondary reference, Holtman, set forth in their response on pages 2-4.
In traversing the rejection of independent Claim 1, Applicant states at the end of page 4 of their response: “However, compared to Holtman, the present application focuses on the automatic encoding of a plurality of LED modules (202) of a single LED light string (20) . . .” The examiner notes that it is Peng not Holtman that is cited for these features; that is, Peng clearly discloses executing an automatic encoding procedure (col. 4, lines 45-49): providing an encoding signal by the control unit (100) for the plurality of light-emitting diode modules (LED11-LEDMN) to determine the sequence on the light-emitting diode light string to complete the automatic encoding (Fig. 8; col. 10, line 64 to col. 11, line 23), thereby meeting the presently claimed limitations.
Further, Applicant states at the end of page 5 of their response: “Specifically, features of ‘executing an image positioning procedure: operating an image capture unit of the mobile device to capture images of locations of the light-emitting diode modules rather than the distance and direction between multiple light sources and the mobile device in space’ in the present application are distinguished from Holman.” (emphasis added). The examiner notes that the features in the underlined portion of this highlighted section, which Applicant argues distinguishes from Holtman, are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. With regard to the claim limitations “‘executing an image positioning procedure: operating an image capture unit of the mobile device to capture images of locations of the light-emitting diode modules”, Holtman clearly teaches “executing an image positioning procedure (using image analysis module 16): operating an image capture unit of the mobile device to capture images of locations (camera 14) of the light-emitting diode modules (12),” the examiner is interpreting the claim limitation “locations” broadly.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of all pending claims set forth above are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO C FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 1-(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.
/PEDRO C FERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2844