Notice of Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 2, 16-20 only are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0070424 A1 by William Lark JR et al (Lark JR). Claim 3 is indicate as allowable subject matter and is objected for depending on rejected claim 1. Claims 4-15 are also objected for depending on claim 3.
Applicant argues that Lark JR reference fails to teach or reasonably suggest the independent claim and the rejection is simply examiner hindsight reconstruction using applicant’s disclosure as a blue print. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the views of applicant. Examiner in detail answers applicant raised issues below.
Applicant raised issues: Lark JR does not teach or suggest : 1) a voltage sensing function block and a timing function block having different priorities 2) determining a priority relationship between the two function blocks.3) Control priority between different function blocks changes according to different lamp working states 4) Since Clark JR did not teach or suggest the independent claim 1, depending claims 2-20 are also allowable along with claim 1.
Referring to claim 1, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, claim 1 requires to teach a process to control a product: Examiner respectfully submit that Fig 1-10 and abstract suggest the lamp control method applicant is claiming in claim 1.
Claim 1 requires: A lamp control method, comprising:
acquiring a present working state of a lamp ; (see paragraph [0069] The lighting control system 900 can be configured to control the operation of the lighting circuits 910a-d based on analysis of the behavior of one or more users of the system 900 and data acquired by the system 900. The behavior analysis can include, for example, pattern recognition of the notification signals from the light sensors 906a-d and motion sensors 908a-d, instructions provided by the user through communication device 920 and information obtained by lighting control device 904 from online databases. For example, the central lighting control device 904 can be notified by the light sensor 906a that the lighting device 910a is switched off at approximately a certain time during the weekdays and at approximately a different time during the weekends. Based on this pattern, the lighting control device 904 can set switch off times, which are different for weekends and weekdays, for automatically switch off the light 910a. Automatic switching off the light 910s can be suspended if motion is detected by motion sensor 908a, and notification can be sent to the communication device 920.)
determining a control priority of a voltage sensing function block and a control priority of a timing function block based on the present working state of the lamp to obtain a priority result (See Fig 10 and paragraph [0065] controller with the help of the several circuit systems senses voltage or current or impedance based on the detection circuit and further communication system 1030 of Fig 10 plays a key role: examiner has given broadest reasonable interpretation to the claimed language based on the block diagrams provided by applicant); and
controlling the lamp to work based on the priority result (Applicant has not provided the priority in particular in the claimed language and hence a broadest reasonable interpretation is provided and explained based on the Clark JR s paragraphs [0055] –[0060] where he discloses detecting a particular status of operating condition of lighting system and then based on the priority or the instructions adjusting the lighting or controlling the lighting ).
Examiner also suggests that based on the teachings from various embodiments of controlling of lighting system, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to teach the method steps in a simple manner as claimed in clam1 of instant application before filing the instant application as controlling the light intelligently in order to provide adequate power based on the priority and control the lighting appropriately Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, the method is described in the view of a product control process appropriately in an obvious manner. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Hence, examiner is rejecting claims 1, 2, 16-20 in view of Clark JR and going for final rejection and indicating the same allowable subject matter. Applicant can amend the independent claim by incorporating claim 3 in to claim 1 by cancelling the claim 3 and adjusting the dependency of other claims depending directly or indirectly on claim 3 appropriately then examiner do not mind to give full consideration to those amendments.
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, 2, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180070424 A1 by William Lark JR. et al (Lark JR).
Referring to claim 1 Lark Jr teaches A lamp control method (See Fig 1 -10 and abstract) comprising:
acquiring a present working state of a lamp (see Fig 8, 9A paragraph [0069] where Lark Jr teaches acquiring the data by the system 900); .
determining a control priority of a voltage sensing function block and a control priority of a timing function block based on the present working state of the lamp to obtain a priority result (See Fig 10 and item 1012 paragraph [0065] where Lark Jr teaches a voltage sensing circuit which detects the a voltage response and control the 1010 lighting circuit system with communication system 1030 and controller 1020 processor); and controlling the lamp to work based on the priority result (See abstract paragraphs [0055] -[0060] where Lark Jr. teaches controlling the lighting based on the requirements selected by user interface and controlled by controller).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
546
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
404
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, these are expressed in various embodiments and it is obvious to a person with ordinary skill to combine these functions and instruct the lighting system intelligently based on the priority results.
Referring to claim 2, Larks Jr teaches the lamp control method according to claim 1, wherein the present working state comprises one of an operating state, a standby state, and an off state. (See Fig 9A-10 and paragraph [0060] where Larks Jr teaches the lighting control device 904 and its operation). But silent on standby state. Hence, it is obvious to a person with ordinary skill to teach the stand by state for users options in order to save power.
Referring to claim 16 Larks Jr teaches the lamp control method according to claim 1, wherein the lamp comprises one or more light strings (See Fig 8, 9 and item 824 lighting system paragraph [0051]).
Referring to claim 17 , Larks Jr teaches a chip (see paragraph [0074]), comprising: a storage unit (Fig 6 and paragraph [0049]), configured to store a computer program; and a processing unit, configured to call the computer program to perform a lamp control method according to claim 1 (See Fig 10 and paragraph [0064] and Fig 5 and paragraph [0048]).
Referring to claim 18, Larks Jr teaches the A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is performed by a processor, a lamp control method according to claim 1 is implemented (see Fig 8 -10 and paragraphs [0071] - [0074]).
Referring to claim 19, Larks Jr teaches a computer program, wherein the computer program comprises one or more computer instructions to implement a lamp control method according to claim 1 (See paragraphs [0071] [0072]).
Referring to claim 20, Larks Jr teaches an electronic device (See Fig 10 paragraph [0064]), comprising a memory (item 1024 memory) and a processor (item 1022), wherein the memory (1024) is configured to store a computer program; and the processor is configured to perform the computer program stored in the memory, so that the electronic device implements a lamp control method according to claim 1 (see paragraph [0048] and [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claim 3, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a lamp control method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring of the present working state of the lamp comprises: receiving a remote switch signal and a mechanical switch signal each of which is configured for controlling the lamp; when the remote switch signal and the mechanical switch signal both indicate "on", determining that the present working state of the lamp is the operating state; when the mechanical switch signal indicates "on" and the remote switch signal indicates "off", determining that the present working state of the lamp is the standby state; and when the mechanical switch signal indicates "off", determining that the present working state of the lamp is the off state. Hence, claim 3 may be allowable over prior art. Hence, claim 3 and depending claims are objected.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 16-20 are rejected
Claims 3-15 are objected.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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 5712728048. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/07/17/2026
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights