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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 15. recites “wherein the alternative processing method is selected whenever an unused input is detected” how is unused input is detected? The examiner searched in application specification the word “detects” “sense” “measure” “measurement” and “monitor” nothing is found and there is lack of structure to perform this function. Therefore the claim limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
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 1-11 and 17-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1-11 and 17-25 recites “A lighting control apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured for receiving control inputs on a plurality of input channels and controlling a plurality of colored lighting elements in response to the control inputs; wherein the control inputs are processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output” renders the claim to be indefinite since a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
Furthermore, in regards to the claim limitation “A lighting control apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured for receiving control inputs on a plurality of input channels and controlling a plurality of colored lighting elements in response to the control inputs; wherein the control inputs are processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output” (1) what is structure is perform a first processing method? Or a first processing method of what? Its not clear how the inputs are processed using a first processing method without reciting enough structure. (2) it is not clear if the applicant is trying to claim apparatus claim or method claim or both in a single claim because having language apparatus and method raises a 112(b) see MPEP 2173.05(p). The claim language is not clear.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to shift the White channel's correlated color temperature using predefined ratios.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3, 5-7, 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al [US 2013/0293147 A1] in view of Bora et al [US 2016/0323972 A1].
In regards to claims 1. Rogers discloses a lighting control apparatus (Fig. 9 & Paragraph [0032]), comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 9, 22 & Paragraph [0061]) configured for receiving control inputs (Fig. 9, 135, 137, 139 and 141) on a plurality of input channels (Fig. 9, plurality of inputs of 22 from 133) and controlling a plurality of colored lighting elements (Fig. 9, 15-18) in response to the control inputs (Fig. 9, 135, 137, 139 and 141);
Rogers does not specify wherein the control inputs are processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether control inputs on a predetermined set of the input channels are within a predetermined range and to select an alternate processing method for processing the control inputs to control a lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of input channels are within the predetermined range.
Bora discloses wherein the control inputs (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800) are processed using a first processing method (Fig. 28, 2800 & Paragraph [0234]) to provide a selected lighting output (Paragraph [0334-339]); and wherein the processing circuitry (Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) is configured to determine whether control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) on a predetermined set of the input channels (Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) are within a predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]) and to select an alternate processing method (Paragraph [0117]) for processing the control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) to control a lighting apparatus (Fig. 10, 900) in response to determining that the control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) on the predetermined set of input channels (Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) are within the predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with the control inputs are processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether control inputs on a predetermined set of the input channels are within a predetermined range and to select an alternate processing method for processing the control inputs to control a lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of input channels are within the predetermined range for purpose of automation and dimming of the lighting devices save more energy than is consumed by the additional components of the lighting device. Moreover, using on/off signals having specified cycle times to produce a blended light reduce the current requirements of the lighting device as disclosed by Bora (Paragraph [0117]).
In regards to claims 2. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control inputs (Rogers: Fig. 9, 135-141) within the predetermined range (Bora Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]) on the predetermined set of input channels (Bora Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) correspond to an unused condition (Bora Paragraph [0117]) on the predetermined set of input channels (Bora Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882).
In regards to claims 3. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (Rogers: Fig. 9, 22) is configured for determining (Rogers: Fig. 9, 22 & Paragraph [0064]) whether the control input on three channels of the plurality of input channels (Bora Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) are within the predetermined range (Bora Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]), wherein the predetermined range (Bora Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]) indicates an unused condition (Bora Paragraph [0117]) on the three channels; and wherein the processing circuitry (Bora: Fig. 10, 106) is configured to select the alternate processing method (Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800) in response to determining that the control inputs on the three channels (Bora Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) are within the predetermined range (Bora: Fig. 38e, 3862 to 3874).
In regards to claims 5. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to activate (Bora: Paragraph [0117]) a functionality in the lighting apparatus using the alternate processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800).
In regards to claims 6. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) is configured to control the lighting apparatus (Fig. 10, 900) using the first input processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800) in response to determining that the control inputs (Bora Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) on the predetermined set of input channels (Bora: Fig. 70 & Paragraph [0081]) are outside of predetermined range (Bora: Fig. 38e, 3862 to 3874).
In regards to claims 7. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first processing method comprises a standard Red Green Blue White (RGBW) lighting control method (Rogers: Fig. 9, Red Green Blue and White & Paragraph [0032]).
In regards to claims 17. Rogers in view of Bora discloses a lighting control method, comprising:
receiving (Fig. 9, 22 & Paragraph [0061]) control inputs (Fig. 9, 135, 137, 139 and 141) on a plurality of input channels (Fig. 9, plurality of inputs of 22 from 133);
Rogers does not specify processing the control inputs to activate a plurality of colored lighting elements to provide a selected lighting output in response to the control inputs; wherein the processing comprises determining whether control inputs on a predetermined set of the input channels are within a predetermined range corresponding to an unused condition on the predetermined set of input channels; selecting a first processing method for processing the control inputs to control the lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of inputs channels are outside of the predetermined range; and select an alternate processing method for processing the control inputs to control a lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of input channels are within the predetermined range.
Bora discloses processing (Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) the control inputs (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800) to activate a plurality of colored lighting elements (Fig. 8, RBGW & Paragraph [0123]) to provide a selected lighting output (Paragraph [0334-339]) in response to the control inputs (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800);
wherein the processing (Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) comprises determining whether control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) on a predetermined set of the input channels (Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) are within a predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]) corresponding to an unused condition (Paragraph [0117 & 0141]) on the predetermined set of input channels (Fig. 38a to f, 3800);
selecting a first processing method (Paragraph [0117]) for processing the control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) to control the lighting apparatus (Fig. 8, RBGW & Paragraph [0123]) in response to determining that the control inputs (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800) on the predetermined set of inputs channels (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]) are outside of the predetermined range; and
select an alternate processing method (Paragraph [0117 & 0141]) for processing the control inputs (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) to control a lighting apparatus(Fig. 8, RBGW & Paragraph [0123]) in response to determining that the control inputs (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800) on the predetermined set of input channels are within the predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with processing the control inputs to activate a plurality of colored lighting elements to provide a selected lighting output in response to the control inputs; wherein the processing comprises determining whether control inputs on a predetermined set of the input channels are within a predetermined range corresponding to an unused condition on the predetermined set of input channels; selecting a first processing method for processing the control inputs to control the lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of inputs channels are outside of the predetermined range; and select an alternate processing method for processing the control inputs to control a lighting apparatus in response to determining that the control inputs on the predetermined set of input channels are within the predetermined range for purpose of automation and dimming of the lighting devices save more energy than is consumed by the additional components of the lighting device. Moreover, using on/off signals having specified cycle times to produce a blended light reduce the current requirements of the lighting device as disclosed by Bora (Paragraph [0117]).
In regards to claims 18. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first processing method comprises a standard Red Green Blue White (RGBW) lighting control method (Rogers: Fig. 9, Red Green Blue and White & Paragraph [0032]).
In regards to claims 23. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first processing method comprises a standard HSI (Hue/Saturation/Intensity) lighting control method (Bora Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al [US 2013/0293147 A1] in view of Bora et al [US 2016/0323972 A1] and further in view of Hoffman et al [US 2024/0224402 A1]
In regards to claims 12. Rogers in view of Bora discloses a method of controlling a lighting apparatus, comprising:
receiving (Fig. 9, 22 & Paragraph [0061]) a control input (Fig. 9, 135, 137, 139 and 141) to the lighting apparatus (Fig. 9 & Paragraph [0032]) on multiple channels (Fig. 9, plurality of inputs of 22 from 133),
Rogers does not specify wherein the input data is processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output; determining whether the control input on at least one channel of the multiple channels is within a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range indicates an unused input on the at least one channel; and in response to determining that the control input on the at least one channel is within the predetermined range, selecting an alternate processing method for processing the input data to control the lighting apparatus.
Bora discloses wherein the input data (Fig. 38a, 3800 to 38F, 3800) is processed using a first processing method (Fig. 28, 2800 & Paragraph [0234]) to provide a selected lighting output (Paragraph [0334-339]);
determining (Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) whether the control input (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) on at least one channel of the multiple channels (Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882) is within a predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]), wherein the predetermined range indicates an unused input (Paragraph [0117 & 0343 & 0348]) on the at least one channel (Fig. 38e to 38f, 3860 & 3882); and
in response to determining that the control input (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) on the at least one channel (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) is within the predetermined range (Fig. 38e to f, 3862 to 3874 & Paragraph [0264-268]), selecting an alternate processing method (Paragraph [0117]) for processing the input data (Fig. 38a to f, 3800) to control the lighting apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with wherein the input data is processed using a first processing method to provide a selected lighting output; determining whether the control input on at least one channel of the multiple channels is within a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range indicates an unused input on the at least one channel; and in response to determining that the control input on the at least one channel is within the predetermined range, selecting an alternate processing method for processing the input data to control the lighting apparatus for purpose of automation and dimming of the lighting devices save more energy than is consumed by the additional components of the lighting device. Moreover, using on/off signals having specified cycle times to produce a blended light reduce the current requirements of the lighting device as disclosed by Bora (Paragraph [0117]).
Rogers in view of Bora does not specify wherein the control input is formatted in accordance with a lighting control protocol to provide a selected lighting output
Hoffman discloses wherein the control input is formatted (Paragraph [0094 & 0055 & 0102]) in accordance with a lighting control protocol (Paragraph [0172]) to provide a selected lighting output (Fig. 2, 200 to Fig. 5, 500 & Paragraph [0106-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive control inputs formatted in accordance with a lighting control protocol to provide a selected lighting output for purpose of improved energy efficiency through tailored intensity, high scalability for large installations (up to 512 channels per universe), and the ability to automate scenes for, for example, concerts, theater, and architectural lighting as disclosed by Hoffman (Paragraph [0094 & 0055 & 0102]).
In regards to claims 13. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Hoffman discloses the method of claim 12, comprising activating (Bora: Paragraph [0117 & 0348 & 0352]) a functionality in the lighting apparatus using the alternate processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800).
In regards to claims 14. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Hoffman discloses the method of claim 12, comprising: in response to determining that the control input on the multiple channels (Bora: Fig. 70 & Paragraph [0081]) are outside of predetermined range (Bora: Fig. 38e, 3862 to 3874), controlling the lighting apparatus using the first input data processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800).
In regards to claims 16. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Hoffman discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the alternative processing method (Bora Paragraph [0117]) provides the selected lighting output (Bora Paragraph [0334-339]) based on inputs on the multiple channels (Bora: Fig. 70 & Paragraph [0081]).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al [US 2013/0293147 A1] in view of Bora et al [US 2016/0323972 A1] and further in view of Hoffman et al [US 2024/0224402 A1] and further in view of Lester [US 2019/0045594 A1]
In regards to claims 15. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Hoffman discloses the method of claim 12,
Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Hoffman does not specify wherein the alternative processing method is selected whenever an unused input is detected.
Lester discloses wherein the alternative processing method is selected whenever an unused input is detected (Paragraph [0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with the alternative processing method is selected whenever an unused input is detected for purpose of saving energy with timer when the user is not in occupancy space as disclosed by Lester (Paragraph [0029]).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al [US 2013/0293147 A1] in view of Bora et al [US 2016/0323972 A1] and further in view of Hoffman et al [US 2024/0224402 A1]
In regards to claims 4. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Rogers in view of Bora does not specify wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive control inputs formatted in accordance with a lighting control protocol to provide a selected lighting output.
Hoffman discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive control inputs formatted (Paragraph [0094 & 0055 & 0102]) in accordance with a lighting control protocol (Paragraph [0172]) to provide a selected lighting output (Fig. 2, 200 to Fig. 5, 500 & Paragraph [0106-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive control inputs formatted in accordance with a lighting control protocol to provide a selected lighting output for purpose of improved energy efficiency through tailored intensity, high scalability for large installations (up to 512 channels per universe), and the ability to automate scenes for, for example, concerts, theater, and architectural lighting as disclosed by Hoffman (Paragraph [0094 & 0055 & 0102]).
Claims 8 -11, 19-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al [US 2013/0293147 A1] in view of Bora et al [US 2016/0323972 A1] and further in view of Johnson et al [US 2017/0181242 A1]
In regards to claims 8. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the alternate processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800) comprises a white mode (Fig. 9, 18 & Paragraph [0061 & 0087]) wherein red, green and blue channels that are in an unused condition are used automatically (Bora: Paragraph [0007]) to shift a White channel’s (Bora: Paragraph [0169]).
Rogers in view of Bora does not specify correlated color temperature (CCT)
Johnson discloses correlated color temperature (CCT) (Paragraph [0058-59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with correlated color temperature (CCT) for purpose of provides maximum flexibility in LED driving, is easily implementable using common low cost components, and makes possible controlling both the on/off control of current & the instantaneous value of the current at high control frequencies and at high control resolutions as disclosed by Johnson (Paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claims 9. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry (Bora: Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) is configured to shift the White channel’s (Bora: Paragraph [0007]) correlated color temperature (Bora: Paragraph [0169]) using predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68]).
In regards to claims 10. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68]) of the red, green and blue channels relative to the White channel (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68]) depend on a color temperature of the White channel and a target corrected color temperature (CCT) (Johnson: Paragraph [0059-61]).
In regards to claims 11. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0059-61]) comprise a red value of 0%, a green value of 10% and a blue value of 20% (Johnson: Paragraph [0036-47]) relative to the White channel’s value (Johnson: Fig. 2, RBGW).
In regards to claims 19. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the alternate processing method (Bora: Fig. 67 to 69, 6700 and 6800) comprises a white mode (Fig. 9, 18 & Paragraph [0061 & 0087]) wherein Red Green and Blue channels that are in an unused condition are used automatically (Bora: Paragraph [0007]) to shift a White channel’s (Bora: Paragraph [0169])
Rogers in view of Bora does not specify correlated color temperature (CCT)
Johnson discloses correlated color temperature (CCT) (Paragraph [0058-59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with correlated color temperature (CCT) for purpose of provides maximum flexibility in LED driving, is easily implementable using common low cost components, and makes possible controlling both the on/off control of current & the instantaneous value of the current at high control frequencies and at high control resolutions as disclosed by Johnson (Paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claims 20. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the processing circuitry (Bora: Fig. 10, 106 & Fig. 8, 106) is configured to shift the White channel’s (Bora: Paragraph [0007]) correlated color temperature (Bora: Paragraph [0169]) using predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68])..
In regards to claims 21. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68]) of the red, green and blue channels relative to the White channel (Johnson: Paragraph [0049-68]) depend on a color temperature of the White channel and a target corrected color temperature (CCT) (Johnson: Paragraph [0059-61]).
In regards to claims 22. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the predefined ratios (Johnson: Paragraph [0059-61]) comprise a red value of 0%, a green value of 10% and a blue value of 20% (Johnson: Paragraph [0036-47]) relative to the White channel’s value (Johnson: Fig. 2, RBGW).
In regards to claims 24. Rogers in view of Bora discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the alternate processing method comprises a white mode (Rogers Fig. 9, 18 & Paragraph [0061 & 0087]) wherein, in response to inputs on a Saturation channel (Bora: Paragraph [0137-141]) being within the predetermined range, the Saturation channel (Bora: Paragraph [0137]) is used to adjust functionality of a Hue channel (Bora: Paragraph [0137-141]), wherein the Hue channel value shifts a White channel’s (Bora: Paragraph [0169]).
Rogers in view of Bora does not specify correlated color temperature (CCT)
Johnson discloses correlated color temperature (CCT) (Paragraph [0058-59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Rogers with correlated color temperature (CCT) for purpose of provides maximum flexibility in LED driving, is easily implementable using common low cost components, and makes possible controlling both the on/off control of current & the instantaneous value of the current at high control frequencies and at high control resolutions as disclosed by Johnson (Paragraph [0009]).
In regards to claims 25. Rogers in view of Bora and further in view of Johnson discloses the method of claim 24, comprising shifting a white point of the lighting output (Rogers Fig. 9, 18 & Paragraph [0061 & 0087]) according to the value of the Hue channel (Bora: Paragraph [0137-141]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI (VICTOR) CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
WEI (VICTOR) CHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/WEI (VICTOR) Y CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844