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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers et al. (US 20130221852), cited in the previous rejection.
As to claim 1, Bowers et al.’s figures 1 and 4 show a method for output configuration of a network device (110) by means of a portable configurator (130), wherein the network device has at least two outputs (provided by the light source) connected to a respective output device (LED strings, ¶0019), wherein each output device has a characteristic output signal, the method comprising: a) initiating communication (step 405) between the network device and the portable configurator; b) activating at least one of the output devices (turn on all LED strings or each LED string in steps 410-420) with respective output of the network device; c) detecting each characteristic output signal (read/captured by the sensor in controller 130 in steps 410-420, ¶0075 - ¶0079) for each activation of the output devices using the portable configurator; d) transmitting information related to the detected output signal from the portable configurator to the network device (receive sensor readings in steps 410-420, ¶0075 - ¶0079); and e) storing the detected characteristic output signals in a table to map different characteristic output signals (step 435. Furthermore, storing a signal to compare with a stored value is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to store the received sensor reading in memory 118 of 110 for the purpose of providing more precise comparisons or calculations) to respective outputs connected to different output devices.
As to claim 2, Bower et al.’s figures show the step of registering (“capture the light” in steps 410-420), ¶0076-0079 the detected characteristic output signal in the portable configurator (furthermore, storing reading or detected value is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to register the captured value in memory 138 for the purpose of providing more precise detection).
As to claim 3, Bower et al.’s figures show the step of receiving information about the characteristic output signals at the portable configurator from the network device (sent by lamp 110, ¶0076-0079).
As to claim 4, Bower et al.’s figures show the step of transmitting the stored detected characteristic output signals mapping to respective output to a network controller from the network device after step 714 (Bower et al.’s ¶0084 and US 20110109445 which incorporated by Bowers et al.).
Claims 5-8 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 9, Bower’s figures disclose that the network device comprises at least one driver (that provides current level to the LED strings, ¶0076) with the at least two outputs; and wherein the at least one driver is connected to a communication bus for communication with the communication circuit (114).
As to claims 10 and 11, analogue bus and a serial bus are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select analog or serial bus for the communication bus for the purpose of ensuring optimum performance.
As to claim 12, Bower et al.’s figures show that the at least one driver is a driver for a luminaire; and wherein the output devices are light sources of the luminaire (inherent).
As to claim 13, Bower et al.’s figures show that the light sources of the luminaire are LED devices (inherent).
As to claim 14, Bower et al.’s figures show that the characteristic output signal from the luminaire is light with different color for each LED device (¶0027).
As to claim 15, Bower et al.’s ¶0143 teaches that the aspect of invention is being embodied in a computer-readable medium.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement computer program instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a claimed method for the purpose of ensuring precise performance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
