DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 1, lines 10 and 11, "a" should be changed to --an-- (note lines 14 and 29 of page 1 which show the correct grammatical form of "an LED"). On line 20 of page 1, the word --the-- should be inserted before "normal", and on line 24 of page 1, the comma after the word "chain" should be deleted for purposes of proper grammatical form. On line 1 of page 2, "Said" should be changed to --This--, and also on this line "considered" should be changed to --taken into account--. On line 15 of page 2, the word "at" should be changed to --of--. On line 24 of page 2, --according to-- should be inserted after the first occurrence of the word "system". On line 2 of page 3, "at" should again be changed to --of--. On line 16 of page 3, "Fig. 1 illustrates" should be changed to
--Fig. 1 illustrates-- (and note that the same change should also be made on lines 17 through 19 of page 3). Also, "Fig." on lines 17 and 18 of this page should be changed to --Figs.--. On line 29 of page 3, the word "also" should be deleted. On line 14 of page 6, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--. On line 28 of page 7, the second occurrence of the word "of" should be changed to --for--, and on line 30 of this page, the word "considered" should be changed to --compensated--. On line 23 of page 8, the word "said" should be changed to --noted above-- (and note that the same change should also be made on lines 27 and 30 of this page). On line 29 of page 8, the word
--state-- should be inserted after the word "ON" and again after the word "OFF". On line 30 of page 9, "meaning. Without" should be changed to --meaning, without--. On line 3 of page 10, the word --be-- should be inserted after "specifically", and on line 9 of this page, the word --and-- should be inserted after the semicolon (and note that the same insertion should also be made on line 14 of page 10). On the first line of page 11, "said" should again be changed to --noted above--. On line 7 of page 11, the word --the-- should be inserted before "driver". On line 25 of page 11, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--. On the second line of page 12, "it may be referred" should be changed to --reference may be made--, and on line 6 of this page, the word "already" should be deleted. On the last line of page 13, the word --and-- should be inserted before "more". On line 18 of page 14, the word --and-- should be inserted before "a P-type" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on the last line of this page). On line 20 of page 17, the word "also" should be deleted, and on line 23 of this page, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--. On the second line of page 18, a comma should be inserted after "128". On line 13 of page 18, "144" should be changed to --120--, and on line 23 of this page, the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On the second line of page 19, "160" should be changed to --162--, and on line 9 of this page, the word "said" should again be changed to --noted above--. On line 16 of page 19, the word --and-- should again be inserted before "more". On lines 20-22 of page 19, the indication that the current may go from the source contact of transistor 134 to the drain contact thereof is incorrect, i.e., the current will actually go from the drain contact of this transistor to its source contact, and therefore an appropriate amendment should be made in order to correct this description. On line 31 of page 19, the comma after the word "noted" should be deleted. On line 22 of page 20, "further on" should be changed to --and--. On the first line of page 21, "Fig." should be changed to –Figs.-- (and note that the same correction should also be made on line 15 of this page (both occurrences), and on line 17 of this page as well. On line 31 of page 21, "a" should be changed to --an--. On line 7 of page 22, the word --and-- should be inserted before "more" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on lines 11 of this page). On line 10 of page 22, "their Vth is applied to their gate contacts" should be changed to --its Vth is applied to its gate contact". On line 27 of page 22, the second occurrence of "a" should again be changed to --an--. On line 3 of page 24, the word --be-- should be inserted after "specifically", and on line 10 of this page, the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On line 17 of page 24, the word --and-- should be inserted before "more" (and note that the same insertion is also needed on line 19 of this page). On line 24 of page 24, the word "said" should again be changed to --noted above--, and on line 25 of this page, a comma should be inserted before "may". On line 18 of page 25, the word --be-- should be inserted after "specifically", and on line 23 of this page, the word "is" should again be changed to --are--. On line 30 of page 25, the word --and-- should again be inserted before "more". On the first line of page 26, the word --and-- should again be inserted before "more" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on line 3 of this page). On line 5 of page 26, the word --to-- should be inserted after "connected" (and note that the same insertion should also be made on line 9 of this page). On line 28 of page 26, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--. On line 15 of page 27, the word "its" should be changed to --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 10 of claim 1, the word "at" should be changed to -of--.
On line 12 of claim 11, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--, and also in claim 11, a period should be inserted after "circuit" on the last line.
On line 9 of claim 12, the word "at" should again be changed to --of--, and note that the same change should also be made at the end of line 14 of this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rybicki et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0184080.
As to claim 1, Rybicki et al discloses, in figure 6,
an electronic circuit configured for being connected to at least one light emitting diode LED (diodes 620 and/or diodes 630 within LED string circuit 618) and at least one driver circuit (614) configured for providing a driver current (the driver current flowing through diodes 620 and 630), the electronic circuit comprising:
a bypass circuit (the field effect transistor within circuit 617) configured for bypassing at least a portion of the driver current around the LED; and
a detection circuit (detection 616) defining a threshold voltage (the voltage at the output terminal of circuit 614 which causes the field effect transistor within detection circuit 616 to change from the conducting state to the nonconducting state or vice-versa), wherein the detection circuit is configured for activating the bypass circuit in response to an output voltage (the output voltage of driver circuit 614) of the driver circuit dropping below the threshold voltage, wherein the threshold voltage matches a minimum output voltage of the driver circuit (inherently in figure 6 of Rybicki et al, when the output voltage of circuit 614 drops below the above-noted threshold voltage, which inherently matches a minimum output voltage thereof, the field effect transistor within detection circuit 616 turns off, which causes the field effect transistor within circuit 617 to turn on, thereby bypassing diodes 630 within circuit 618).
As to claim 2, note that detection circuit 616 shown in figure 6 of Rybicki et al is inherently configured for controlling the on/off state of the field effect transistor within circuit 617 by using a negative loop feedback, i.e., as the gate voltage of the FET within detection circuit 616 goes to a logic low state in response to the output of driver circuit 614, its drain terminal goes to a logic high state, and in response to the gate voltage of this transistor going to a high logic state, its drain terminal goes to a low logic state, and this operation will inherently cause the output of driver circuit 614 to similarly go higher or lower in voltage, and thus can be considered to be a type of negative loop feedback.
As to claim 3, note that Rybicki et al's figure 6 electronic circuit appears to continuously regulate the output voltage of driver circuit 614 by bypassing the LEDs within circuit 618, note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 4, note that Rybicki et al's figure 6 electronic circuit appears to continuously increase the portion of the driver current bypassed around LEDs 630 with the output voltage of driver circuit 614 decreasing in response to the output voltage thereof dropping below the above-noted threshold voltage, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 5, note that Rybicki et al's figure 6 electronic circuit appears to keep the output voltage of driver circuit 614 constant, at least within a predetermined voltage range, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 6, note that the resistors and transistors within circuits 616 and 617 in figure 6 of Rybicki et al can be interpreted as being analog circuits, using the test of broadest reasonable interpretation.
As to claim 8, the claimed at least one transistor reads on the field effect transistor within detection circuit 616, and note that the turn on/off threshold Vth of this transistor defines the above-noted threshold voltage of claim 1.
As to claim 9, note that the field effect transistor within detection circuit 616 inherently comprises gate, a drain and source contacts, and note further that this transistor is arranged such that the output voltage of driver circuit 614 is applied to the gate contact thereof, i.e., the above-noted driver circuit of claim 1 can alternatively be interpreted as the combination of bridge circuit 614 together with the resistor between its output node and the gate contact of the transistor within detection circuit 616.
As to claims 10-12, the limitations of these three claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rybicki et al, supra.
Although Rybicki et al does not disclose the claimed at least one capacitor for stabilizing the electronic circuit, where and such capacitor defines a low-pass filter in the electronic circuit, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to use capacitors for the purpose of stabilizing electronic circuits by defining low-pass filters therein, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner, i.e., for performing the well-known function of filtering out any noise that might exist within the electronic circuit.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note figure 3 of Song et al, figure 1 of Ichikawa and figure 5 of van de Ven et al, each of which is also seen to anticipate at least independent claims 1 and 10-12, i.e., in each of these three references a bypass circuit is activated for bypassing one or more light emitting diodes in response to the output of a driver circuit dropping below a threshold voltage. Specifically, in figure 3 of Song et al, the claimed driver circuit is AC generator 302, note that when VIN drops below a threshold level, such is detected by a detection circuit 350 which causes bypass transistor 356 to turn on, thereby bypassing light emitting diode(s) 344, note what is indicated in paragraph [0038] of this reference. In figure 1 of Ichikawa, the claimed driver circuit is the combination of power source BT and switch SWb, note that when the voltage at terminal T1 drops below a threshold voltage, such is detected by a detection circuit 3 which causes bypass transistor 22 to turn on, thereby bypassing the LED 21b. In figure 5 of van de Ven et al, the claimed driver circuit is circuit B1, note that when the output voltage of this driver circuit drops below a threshold level, such is detected by the detection circuit between driver circuit B1 and the light emitting diodes S1 through S4, and this causes bypass transistors Q54 through Q56 to turn on, thereby bypassing the LEDs.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 December 5, 2025