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 .
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicants' application filed on 10/10/24. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination and are pending for the reasons indicated herein below.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat)
Regarding claim 1. Haas teaches a power supply [fig 3] comprising: input voltage [161] and for providing a rectified voltage [161 is a DC voltage];
a switched mode power supply [120] adapted to receive the rectified voltage and to provide a regulated output voltage [see 162] to a load [load for 162];
a first sensor [141] for sensing the rectified voltage and to provide a first control signal [input to 145];
and a controller [μC with 122] for controlling the switched mode power supply, wherein the controller is arranged to enable and disable [¶ 43] the switched mode power supply;
wherein the controller is arranged to enable the switched mode power supply when the first control signal is below a threshold level [¶42-¶43 detected limited power (detected value by 141), going above limited power 121 permanently interrupts power when going above limited power.] and disable the switched mode power supply when the first control signal is above the threshold level,
and wherein the switched mode power supply is a buck converter or a flyback converter [120 is a flyback].
However, Haas does not explicitly mention a circuit comprising: an input source having a rectifier for receiving an alternating current, AC.
Mat teaches a circuit comprising: an input source having a rectifier for receiving an alternating current, AC[see AC input].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Mat in order to provide a circuit that is compatible with standard electrical outlets.
Regarding claim 2. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the switched mode power supply is a self-oscillating switched mode power supply [120 is self-oscillating].
Regarding claim 3. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the switched mode power supply comprises a second sensor [144 Haas] for sensing the regulated output voltage and to generate a second control signal, wherein the controller is arranged for receiving the second control signal.
Regarding claim 4. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the threshold level is based on a power required [implicit, limited power for 120, Haas] by the load, wherein the controller is arranged to: increase the threshold level based on an increase of the power required by the load [function of flyback, Haas], and decrease the threshold level based on a decrease of the power required by the load [lower load will require less power, Haas].
Regarding claim 6. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the controller is part of the load [limitation is interpreted as controller complimenting the load].
Regarding method claims 13-14, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device "inherently performs the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
Claims 7-9, 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat) and further in view of Gao et al. (US 10172197 B1)
Regarding claim 7. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1.
However, Haas as modified does not explicitly mention a luminating apparatus comprising: a further power supply for providing power to a further load, the load, and the further load.
Gao teaches a luminating apparatus [fig 1] comprising: a further power supply for providing power to a further load, the load, and the further load [see fig 1, LED].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Gao in order to provide power to the LED, thus illuminating the required location.
Regarding claim 8. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the further load is a lighting load [LED, Gao].
Regarding claim 9. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the lighting load comprises a light emitting diode, LED [i.e. LED].
Regarding claim 11. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the further power supply comprises a further controller [i.e. controller of device].
Regarding claim 12. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller is arranged to control the switched mode power supply and the further power supply [function of controller].
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat) in view of Gao et al. (US 10172197 B1) and further in view of Coetzee et al. (US 20150208469 A1)
Regarding claim 10. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7.
However, Haas as modified teaches a circuit wherein the controller comprises a wireless communication module arranged to receive a wireless signal, wherein the controller is arranged to enable or disable the further power supply based on the received wireless signal.
Coetzee teaches a circuit wherein the controller comprises a wireless communication module arranged to receive a wireless signal, wherein the controller is arranged to enable or disable the further power supply based on the received wireless signal [¶168].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Coetzee in order to provide remote monitoring and configuration that allows update to the controller parameters and no need for additional wiring across isolation boundaries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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, and if the claim objections stated above were overcome.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. 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 as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan Perez whose telephone number is (571)272-8837. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. (7:30 – 5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Crystal Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-1682. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRYAN R PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights