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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of CN202421649594.4 filed on 07/12/2024 has NOT been received/retrieved by the office.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “Disclosed is…” which is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “a low color temperature” and “a high color temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “an output end of the switch module is gatedly connected to the main illumination light…” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the meaning of “getedly connected”, and appears to be a poor translation.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “two color temperature gears for gating…” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the meaning of “color temperature gear”, and appears to be a poor translation.
Regarding claims 2-8, the claims are rejected based upon dependency of rejected independent claim 1 as all dependent claim inherits the deficiency of the claim from which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a third gear” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the meaning and/or corresponding electric component of “a third gear”, and appears to be a poor translation.
Regarding claim 2, the term “the low color temperature” and “the high color temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a gating switch” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the meaning and/or corresponding electric component of “a gating switch”, and appears to be a poor translation.
Regarding claim 3, the term “the low color temperature” and “the high color temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “positively connected to the diode” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the connection to the diode to be considered “positively connected”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the gating switch” which renders the claim indefinite, as the examiner cannot determine the meaning and/or corresponding electric component of “the gating switch”, and appears to be a poor translation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of CN220108286U hereinafter “Cai” in view of US2016/0255683A1 hereinafter “Wu”
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses an emergency illumination circuit (Page.5 L19: an LED lamp with emergency illumiation), comprising
a light-emitting diode (LED) driving module (Page.5 L20: an LED driving power supply),
an emergency light source (Page.5 L22: an emergency lighting LED lamp),
a main illumination light source (Page.5 L20: a main illumination LED lamp),
an emergency illumination detection module (Page.5 L20-21: a commercial power detection circuit); wherein
an input end of the LED driving module Page.5 L23-24: the input end of LED driving power supply is connected to commercial power) and a detection end of the emergency illumination detection module (Page.5 L27-28: the detection end of the commercial power detection circuit is connected to the commercial power) are both used for being connected to a power source (Page.5 L24: commercial power input);
an output end of the emergency illumination detection module is connected to the emergency light source (Page.5 L27-29: feedback end of the commercial power detection circuit is connected to the main control module; Page.5 L35: the control end of the emergency lighting LED lamp is connected to the main control module)
Cai does not explicitly disclose:
a switch module and
an output end of the LED driving module is connected to an input end of the switch module;
an output end of the switch module is gatedly connected to the main illumination light source or the emergency illumination detection module;
the main illumination light source comprises a low color temperature light source and a high color temperature light source, and
the switch module comprises at least two color temperature gears for gating the low color temperature light source or the high color temperature light source
Wu discloses a LED driver circuit wherein the circuit comprises
a switch module (¶17L15: a switch) and
an output end of the LED driving module is connected to an input end of the switch module (as shown in Fig.3 for example);
an output end of the switch module is gatedly connected to the main illumination light source (as shown in Fig.3 for example; the output of switch [231] is connected to LED [30, 31 and 32]) or the emergency illumination detection module;
the main illumination light source comprises a low color temperature light source (¶20L1-13: the first string has yellow-light LED) and a high color temperature light source (¶20L1-13: the second string has six 10-12K ultra blue LED), and
the switch module comprises at least two color temperature gears for gating the low color temperature light source or the high color temperature light source (¶21L1-12: the switch may switch the switch to change the conduction status of the first/second/third string to provide a colder or a warmer color of the light emitted from the lamp)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the main illumination light disclosed by Cai with the lamp disclosed by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the lamp disclosed by Wu provide a wide dimming range and achieve flexible light color. (Wu ¶7L1-8)
Regarding claim 2, Cai in view of Wu hereinafter “Cai/Wu” discloses in Wu the emergency illumination circuit according to claim 1, wherein
the switch module further comprises a third gear connected to the low color temperature light source and the high color temperature light source. (as shown in Fig.3 for example, the switch [231] has 3 positions)
Regarding claim 6, Cai/Wu discloses in Cai the emergency illumination circuit according to claim 1, wherein the emergency illumination detection module comprises
an emergency detection chip (Page.6 L40: DC-DC module [U1]) and an emergency power source (Page.5 L21-22: a standby power supply module);
the detection end of the emergency detection chip is used for being connected to the mains electricity (as shown in Fig.1 for example); a
power source input end of the emergency detection chip is respectively connected to the emergency power source (as shown in IFg.2 for example) and a negative electrode of the main illumination light source (Note: all circuit elements are grounded); and
an enable of the emergency detection chip is connected to the emergency light source (as shown in Fig.2 for example).
Regarding claim 7, Cai/Wu discloses in Cai the emergency illumination circuit according to claim 1, wherein the LED driving module comprises
a rectifier bridge (¶17L11: a rectification module), a filtering unit (¶17L23-24: filtered by the diode [211]) and a driving chip (¶17L13: a control chip);
an input end of the rectifier bridge is used for being connected to the mains electricity (as shown in Fig.3 for example);
an output end of the rectifier bridge is connected to an input end of the filtering unit (as shown in Fig.3, rectifier [21] is connected to diode [211]); and
the output ends of the filtering unit are respectively connected to the power supply end of the driving chip and the input end of the switch module (as shown in Fig.3, diode [211] is connected to chip [220] and switch [231]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai/Wu in view of US2022/0174798A1 hereinafter “Li”
Regarding claim 8, Cai/Wu discloses the emergency illumination circuit according to claim 7,
Cai/Wu does not explicitly disclose:
the filtering unit comprises a first inductor, a first capacitor, a first resistor and an electrolytic capacitor; one end of the first inductor is respectively connected to one end of the first capacitor, one end of the first resistor and an output end of the rectifier bridge; the other end of the first inductor is respectively connected to one end of the electrolytic capacitor, the other end of the first resistor, a power supply end of the driving chip and an input end of the switch module; and the other end of the first capacitor is connected to the other end of the electrolytic capacitor, and is grounded.
Li discloses a voltage stabilizing circuit in Fig.7 for example, wherein the circuit comprises
a first inductor (¶44L2: an inductor [T2A]), a first capacitor (¶44L5: a first capacitor [C8]), a first resistor (¶44L4: a resistor [R21]) and an electrolytic capacitor (¶44L5-6: a electrolytic capacitor [EC4]);
one end of the first inductor is respectively connected to one end of the first capacitor, one end of the first resistor (as shown in Fig.7 for example, terminal [10] of inductor [T2A] is connected to left node of [R21] and top node of [C8]) and an output end of the rectifier bridge (¶44L1-36: the fourth refikite diode act as a rectifier)
the other end of the first inductor is respectively connected to one end of the electrolytic capacitor, the other end of the first resistor (as shown in Fig.7 for example, terminal [7] of inductor [T2A] is connected to right node of [R21] and bottom node of [EC4]) a power supply end of the driving chip and an input end of the switch (¶44L1-36: a purpose of providing a stable voltage for the control circuit)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the circuit disclosed by Cai/Wu to include voltage stabilizer disclosed by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the circuit provides a stable voltage for the control circuit. (Li ¶44L1-36: a purpose of providing a stable voltage for the control circuit)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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 (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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844