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 .
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 2, 8 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 8 and 19 are indefinite where each specifies “predetermined,” since “predetermined,” according to applicant's definition, merely means “determined beforehand.” For example, see Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. V. Marzall, Comr. Pats., 84 USPQ 180 (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed element(s), if any, is/are intended to perform the determining. Determined by what claimed element(s), if any?
It would be similarly unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any, is/are intended to occur only after the predetermining. Determined when? Prior to what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-11, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ezaki et al (US 2008/0174545 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ezaki discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) driver circuit for driving an LED [e.g., Fig. 1: LED] and electrically connectable to an activation interface [e.g., Fig. 1: 10], said LED driver circuit comprising:
a controller [e.g., Fig. 1: 3] electrically connectable to the activation interface, said controller configured to receive an activation signal [e.g., Figs. 1, 2: b] from the activation interface and generate a control signal [e.g., Figs. 1, 2: c],
wherein said control signal includes a brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: c = enabled/high/not low/not zero];
a binary counter [e.g., Fig. 1: 1] electrically connected to the controller, said binary counter configured to receive the control signal from the controller and generate a code [e.g., Figs. 1, 2: e];
a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) [e.g., Fig. 1: 6] electrically connected to the binary counter, said DAC configured to receive the code from the binary counter and generate an analog signal [e.g., Paragraph 24: analog data]; and
a voltage controlled current source (VCCS) [e.g., Fig. 1: 7] electrically connected to the DAC, said VCCS configured to receive the analog signal from the DAC and control a brightness of the LED based on the analog signal [e.g., Paragraph 25: The variable current source 7 generates a drive current whose level is based on the analog data fed from the DAC 6, and supplies the drive current to the LED] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Regarding claim 2, Ezaki discloses a timer [e.g., Fig. 1: 12] electrically connected to the binary counter, the DAC, and the VCCS,
said timer configured to deactivate the binary counter [e.g., Fig. 2: e=0], the DAC [e.g., Paragraph 24: analog conversion of e=0], and the VCCS [e.g., Paragraph 25: drive current based on analog conversion of e=0] after a predetermined amount of time [e.g., Paragraph 37: 512 µs] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Regarding claim 3, Ezaki discloses a power supply [e.g., supply of Fig. 1: ground, a, c, e; Paragraph 24: analog data, Paragraphs 52-53: clock signal; Fig. 2: power supply] electrically connected to the VCCS [e.g., via Fig. 1: ground; Paragraph 24: analog data], the binary counter [e.g., via Fig. 1: a, c], and the DAC [e.g., via Fig. 1: e],
a charge pump [e.g., Paragraph 52: charge pump] electrically connected to the power supply [e.g., via Paragraphs 52-53: clock signal], said charge pump configured to supply a source voltage [e.g., Paragraph 52: drive voltage] to the LED (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Regarding claim 4, Ezaki discloses said VCCS configured to receive a sink current [e.g., Paragraph 25: current flow of negative charges] from the LED, wherein the VCCS is a non-linear current source [e.g., see Fig. 2: non-linear drive current] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Regarding claim 5, Ezaki discloses said binary counter generating the code to include the brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: e = enabled/high/not low/not zero],
said DAC generating the analog signal to have a voltage value [e.g., Paragraph 24: analog conversion of e = enabled/high/not low/not zero] representative of the brightness value (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Regarding claim 6, Ezaki discloses the LED driver circuit is a single integrated circuit (IC) chip (e.g., see Fig. 1; Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 12, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki et al (US 2008/0174545 A1) in view of Underwood et al (US 2017/0231053 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ezaki discloses said activation interface configured to receive input [e.g., Fig. 1: a] including a selection of the brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: a = enabled/high/not low/not zero] and generate the activation signal including the brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: a = enabled/high/not low/not zero] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
Ezaki doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a user interface.
However, Underwood discloses the activation interface is a user interface [e.g., Figs. 2, 6: 115; Fig. 3: 180; Fig. 13: 115AB, 136], said activation interface configured to receive a user input including a selection of the brightness value and generate the activation signal including the brightness value (e.g., see Paragraphs 107, 114, 116, 134).
Ezaki and Underwood are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Underwood’s user interface with Ezaki’s system, so as to allow a user to control operations as desired.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Underwood’s user interface with Ezaki’s system as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 13, Underwood discloses the activation interface includes at least one of a push button, a touch sensor, and a switch (e.g., see Paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 27 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends, “Applicant's Specification explains that the "predetermined amount of time" may be selected by a user through the activation interface or may be selected during manufacture and coded into the timer. (See Applicant's specification, paragraphs [0020] and [0036]) Applicant's specification further explains that the timer provides a clock signal for the predetermined period and, once that period has ended, stops providing the clock signals to deactivate the binary counter, DAC, and VCCS. Applicant accordingly respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejections of claims 2, 8, and 19 under § 112(b)” (see Page 6 of the Response filed on 27 March 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Claims 2, 8 and 19 are indefinite where each specifies “predetermined,” since “predetermined,” according to applicant's definition, merely means “determined beforehand.” For example, see Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. V. Marzall, Comr. Pats., 84 USPQ 180 (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia).
The Applicant points to specification paragraphs [0020] and [0036]. However, those specification paragraphs don’t define what is meant by “a predetermined period of time.” They merely provide a couple examples of what “may” select or program “a predetermined period of time.” These non-limiting examples in no way define the metes and bounds of what is meant by “a predetermined period of time,” as instantly claimed.
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed element(s), if any, is/are intended to perform the determining. Determined by what claimed element(s), if any?
It would be similarly unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any, is/are intended to occur only after the predetermining. Determined when? Prior to what claimed event(s)/step(s), if any?
The Applicant contends, “Ezaki fails to teach or fairly suggest "[a] controller configured to receive an activation signal from the activation interface and generate a control signal, wherein said control signal includes a brightness value," as recited in amended independent claim 1” (see Page 8 of the Response filed on 27 March 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Ezaki discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) driver circuit for driving an LED [e.g., Fig. 1: LED] and electrically connectable to an activation interface [e.g., Fig. 1: 10], said LED driver circuit comprising:
a controller [e.g., Fig. 1: 3] electrically connectable to the activation interface, said controller configured to receive an activation signal [e.g., Figs. 1, 2: b] from the activation interface and generate a control signal [e.g., Figs. 1, 2: c],
wherein said control signal includes a brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: c = enabled/high/not low/not zero]
[e.g., Paragraph 23: The AND operator 5 performs an AND operation of the output signal "c" of the on/off controller 3 and the output signal "d" of the UVLO section 4; that is, the output logic level of the AND operator 5 is high only when the output signals "c" and "d" are both high, and is low otherwise.
Paragraph 26: The switch 8 controls whether or not to supply the drive current to the LED according to the output signal of the AND operator 5] (e.g., see Paragraphs 17-67).
The instant application states, “the activation signal may include a brightness value for controlling a brightness of the LED” (instant specification paragraph 19).
Ezaki’s brightness value [e.g., Fig. 2: c = enabled/high/not low/not zero, or disabled/low/not high/zero] controls whether or not to supply the drive current to the LED -- causing the LED to either start emitting light or stop emitting light (i.e., “controlling a brightness of the LED” as disclosed in the instant specification) based on the brightness value.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of any new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
26 May 2026
Prosecution Insights