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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on October 18 of 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: Lighting Device having Dimming Control Circuit with Low Memory Usage
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
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. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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 abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
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.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it repeats information given in the title, and fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. A lighting device , and a microcontroller configured to determine a dimming value value to the current driver., so that the determine the new dimming value
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 2 is indefinite as the meets and bounds of the limitation “the change in brightness of perceptible by a user” could not be readily ascertained. The amount of brightness change that might be perceived, or not, by a user is a subjective amount undefined by the claim, or even the originally filed description. There is no standard with which to compare the prior art to determine whether the cited limitation is positively met. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, any change in brightness as inherently meeting the cited limitation.
Dependent claim 3 is rejected at least for tis dependency on indefinite dependent claim 2, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 4 is indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “based on at least one of addition and subtraction, and bit shifting” requires the claimed device to include at least one each of both “addition”, “subtraction” and “bit shifting”; at least one each of both “addition” and “subtraction”; or simply at least one of either “addition” and “subtraction”. The applicant is advised that, the use of the phrase “at least one of… and…” is a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed element; “at least one of… or…” must be used when the intended requirement is to define a structure having at least just one of the cited elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 4 as attempting to define the “dimming value change” as being based simply on at least one of either “addition” or “subtraction”.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 2. The lighting device according to Claim 1, wherein the microcontroller is configured to determine the new dimming value when the dimming request signal is given, the new dimming value differs from the current dimming value and causes a change in brightness of the at least one dimmable light source
CLAIM 4. The lighting device according to Claim 1, wherein the dimming value change is based on at least one of addition [[and]]or subtraction, and bit shifting.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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.
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.
35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BRESSLER et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0117053).
Regarding independent claim 1, BRESSLER et al. discloses a lighting device 2 (as seen in Figure 1) for vehicle interior lighting (see paragraph 0003), including at least one dimmable light source 4 (as seen in Figure 1); a current driver 44/46 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to supply the at least one dimmable light source 4 with a control current (see paragraph 0050), the at least one dimmable light source 4 having a brightness corresponding to the control current (inherent, as once provided with a current, element 4 will necessarily exhibit a brightness level); and a microcontroller 36 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to determine a dimming value to dim the at least one dimmable light source 4 in response to a dimming request signal (see paragraph 0049), the microcontroller 36 configured to transfer the dimming value to the current driver 44/46 (see paragraph 0049), wherein the current driver 44/46 is configured to adjust the control current based on the dimming value (see paragraph 0049), the at least one dimmable light source 4 includes a brightness corresponding to the dimming value (inherent, as once provided with a current, element 4 will necessarily exhibit a brightness level), and the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine the dimming value as a new dimming value based on a current dimming value and a dimming value change, with the dimming value change based on the dimming request signal (see paragraphs 0051 and 0052).
Regarding dependent claim 2 (as best understood), BRESSLER et al. further discloses the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine the new dimming value when the dimming request signal is given (see paragraph 0051), the new dimming value differs from the current dimming value (inherent, as a change in value requires the new value to be different from a preceding value) and causes a change in brightness of the at least one dimmable light source 4 (see paragraphs 0051 and 0052), and the change in brightness is perceptible by a user (considered inherent, see previous section 11).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), BRESSLER et al. further discloses the dimming value change is based on at least one of addition and subtraction (increasing/decreasing the input signal, see paragraph 0051), and bit shifting.
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), BRESSLER et al. further discloses the dimming value change includes integer changes of the dimming value in a positive or negative direction (increasing/decreasing the input signal, see paragraph 0051).
Regarding dependent claim 6 (as best understood), BRESSLER et al. further discloses the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine the dimming value change based on the current dimming value and one or more predefined dimming value parameters (see paragraph 0052).
Regarding dependent claim 10, BRESSLER et al. further the current driver configured to adjust the control current for supplying the at least one dimmable light source 4 according to a linear constant current control, and wherein an amplitude of the control current is based on the dimming value (see paragraph 0055).
Regarding dependent claim 11, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the dimming request signal comprises a start signal 64 (as seen in Figure 2) and wherein the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine a new dimming value in response to the start signal 64 (see paragraph 0055).
Regarding dependent claim 12, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the start signal 64 indicates dimming in a positive direction or a negative direction (increasing/decreasing the input signal, see paragraph 0051), the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine the new dimming value based on the current dimming value and a positive dimming value change when dimming in the positive direction is indicated (increasing the input signal, see paragraph 0051), and to determine the new dimming value based on the current dimming value and a negative dimming value change when dimming in the negative direction is indicated (decreasing the input signal, see paragraph 0051).
Regarding dependent claim 13, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the dimming request signal comprises a stop signal and the microcontroller is configured to leave the current dimming value unchanged in response to the stop signal.
Regarding dependent claim 14, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the dimming request signal comprises information about a proportional brightness level with respect to a maximum brightness of the at least one dimmable light source 4 (see paragraph 0053), the microcontroller 36 is configured to determine the new dimming value corresponding to the proportional brightness level (see paragraph 0053) and the at least one dimmable light source 4 comprises one or more light-emitting diodes 6 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the at least one dimmable light source 4 comprises one or more light-emitting diodes 6 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 16, BRESSLER et al. further discloses the lighting device 1 is configured to receive the dimming request signal from an external source via a switch 28 (as seen in Figure 1), a button 28 (as seen in Figure 1), a user interface with a display 32 (as seen in Figure 1), or via a signal line (see paragraph 0049).
Regarding dependent claim 17, BRESSLER et al. further discloses an integrated sensor system (see paragraph 0047) configured to collect user input via at least one of a button 28 (as seen in Figure 1), a switch 28 (as seen in Figure 1), an integrated proximity sensor system, touch sensor system, and a force sensor system, and to transform the user input into the dimming request signal (see paragraph 0047).
Regarding independent method claim 18, BRESSLER et al. further discloses a method 48 (as seen in Figure 2) to dim a lighting device 4 (as seen in Figure 1) for vehicle interior lighting (see paragraph 0003), including at least one dimmable light source 4 (as seen in Figure 1) and a current driver 44/46 (as seen in Figure 1) for supplying the at least one dimmable light source 4 with a control current (see paragraph 0050) with which the at least one dimmable light source 4 has a brightness that corresponds to the control current (inherent, as once provided with a current, element 4 will necessarily exhibit a brightness level), wherein the method includes determining a dimming value for dimming the at least one dimmable light source 4 (step 54, as seen in Figure 2); transferring the dimming value to the current driver 44/48 (step 58, as seen in Figure 2); adjusting the control current based on the dimming value (see paragraph 0053), so that the at least one dimmable light source 4 has the brightness that corresponds to the dimming value (inherent, as once provided with a current, element 4 will necessarily exhibit a brightness level); and determining a new dimming value based on a current dimming value and a dimming value change (step 66, as seen in Figure 2), and the dimming value change is based on a dimming request signal (see paragraph 0053).
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 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRESSLER et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0117053).
Regarding dependent claim 3, BRESSLER et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim, further disclosing the dimming value following a specific time curve (see paragraph 0061).
BRESSLER et al. fails to explicitly disclose the dimming value following a non-logarithmic time curve.
However, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the dimming value in the device of BRESSLER et al. could only follow one of two options: a logarithmic time curve, or a non-logarithmic time curve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the non-logarithmic time curve from the 2 identified and predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397). In this case, selecting a non-logarithmic time curve would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding dependent claim 9, BRESSLER et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim, further disclosing the current driver configured to adjust the control current for supplying the at least one dimmable light source 4.
BRESSLER et al. fails to explicitly teach adjusting the control current based on pulse width modulation (PWM), with a portion of an on phase at a total time determined by the new dimming value.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of pulse width modulation (PWM), specifically for controlling the brightness of light sources, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply use PWM to control the control current in the lighting device 1 of BRESSLER et al., to obtain the predictable result of enabling the apparatus to efficiently and precisely adjust the brightness of the at least one dimmable light source 4. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding the portion of an on phase at a total time determined by the new dimming value, such scheme would naturally result from the use of PWM control of the control current, as the new dimming value (i.e., perceived brightness) is the direct result of the total ON time phase during a single control period (i.e., duty cycle).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tripathi (U.S. Pat. 7,906,917), Rhodes (U.S. Pat. 8,207,687), Carli (U.S. Pat. 8,816,604), Fujita et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,768,268), Murakami et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,301,784), Yang et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,269,432), Scenini et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,299,729), Trinschek (U.S. Pat. 8,669,714), Roebke (U.S. Pat. 9,024,470), Trinschek et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,159,124), Nietfeld (U.S. Pat. 10,555,391), and Wang (U.S. Pat. 11,483,908) disclose illumination devices including at least one light emitting diode (LED), a current driver for supplying a current to the LED, and a controller configured to receive instructions related to a desired brightness level of the LED and provide the current driver with instructions related to the current to be fed to the LED to achieve a desired brightness level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant teaches an illumination device including a light source; a current driver configured to supply a current to the light source; and a microcontroller configured to determine a dimming value in response to a signal, and transfer the dimming value to the current driver to drive the light source to produce a desired brightness corresponding to the dimming value. The microcontroller is further configured to determine a dimming value change based on the current dimming value and at least one predefined dimming value parameters.
While the use and advantages of dimmable illumination devices are old and well known in the art (as evidenced by the documents already made of record), no prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention, specifically the mathematical relationship between a current dimming value and a new dimming value, as defined in dependent claim 7. Claim 8 is cited as allowable for tis dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7044. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875