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 .
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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites ”700 MA”. It should be recited as --700 mA--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarellis et al. (hereinafter Kanarellis; US 2020/0235607) in view of Hick (US 2018/0054083) and Goergen et al. (US 2019/0312751), or in view of Hick (US 2018/0054083), Wendt et al. (hereinafter Wendt; US 10,231,314) and Goergen et al. (US 2019/0312751).
Regarding claim 1, Kanarellis discloses a Power over Ethernet (PoE++) Light Emitting Diode (LED) driver and a five-channel controller assembly [e.g. fig. 1/2], the assembly (100) comprises: a. a PoE input passthrough port [e.g. POE 102; provide an input to one of DEVs] for powering and controlling one or more PoE compatible device [see at least para. 0007]
b. a five-output channel (102) [e.g. when N=5 for POE [N] with each channel configured to offer a constant voltage and a constant current output [e.g. when a LED light fixture is at a constant brightness, the POE output is at a constant voltage and a constant current because when the resistance is fixed when LED is at a constant brightness. In addition, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Co. v, Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8] respectively, thereby facilitating an ethernet-based lighting control system for a plurality of lighting applications [see at least paras. 0044, 0239]; c. an integrated power conversion controller (103) with built-in protection mechanism for managing overloading faults [para. 0018] at a source side of the assembly (100), thereby enabling control of one or more combination of fixtures; and d. a plurality of waterproof and dustproof attributes (104) [e.g. 0041, 0139, 0174, 0175, 0197, 0201, 0206] characterized by a predefined operational temperature range [see at least 0116, 0175]. It’s well-known to provide a PoE input passthrough port for powering and controlling one or more PoE compatible devices. For example, Hick discloses a PoE input passthrough port [see PoE input; the power/data signals pass through a cable/wire from a source to the PoE input] for powering and controlling one or more PoE compatible devices [e.g. LED light fixtures, see at least paras. 0016-0017]. Also, when a LED light fixture is at a constant brightness [e.g. a predetermined brightness, para. 0017 Hick], the POE output is at a constant voltage and a constant current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis in accordance with the teaching of Hick regarding POE inputs in order to provide an alternative power and communication data from a well-known PoE input [see at least figs. 7-8].
The combination does not explicitly disclose PoE++ input for powering and controlling one or more PoE+ compatible devices. However, it’s notorious well-known to implement a newer standard, so the it provides improvement and backward compatibility. The official notice of the foregoing fact is hereby taken. For example, Crenshaw (US 9941737) discloses the improvement of PoE++ [see Col. 1, lines 36-48]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis in accordance with the teaching of the official notice regarding POE++ in order to provide more power/backward compatibility.
The above combination does not disclose constant voltage and constant current output. However, Wendt discloses to provide an output having constant voltage and constant current [Col. 10, lines 45-53]. Wendt does not explicitly disclose each channel configure to having constant voltage and constant current. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Co. v, Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis and the official notice in accordance with the teaching of Wendt regarding an output value to loads in order to conquer overload [Col. 10, lines 45-53].
The combination does not disclose the PoE++ input passthrough port (101) is compliant with IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard. However, it’s well-known to implement a newer standard in order to provide improvement/backward compatibility. For example, Goergen discloses the advantage of IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard [para. 0032, higher output power]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis, Hick, the official notice and Wendt in accordance with the teaching of Goergen regarding IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard in order to provide higher output power [para. 0032].
Regarding claim 2, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the waterproof and dustproof attributes (104), culminates in an Ingress Protection (IP) rating, suitable for outdoor installation of the assembly (100). The combination does not explicitly disclose Ingress Protection (IP) rating. However, it’s well-known to implement Ingress Protection (IP) rating to achieve improved protection. The official notice of the foregoing fact is hereby taken. For example, Ericson (US 10,724,724) discloses to implement a device with IP rating suitable to be used in hostile environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a device with IP rating suitable to be used in hostile environments.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the assembly (100) is characterized by its compact form factor with dimensions measuring 3 inches in width, 7 inches in length, and 2 inches in height. However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have an area of the first receiving capacitive element smaller, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assembly (100) integrates with advanced home automation systems through one or more custom firmware drivers, using one or more connected nodes [see at least paras. 0014, 0016-0017, 0036-0037, 0040 Kanarellis].
Regarding claim 5, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assembly (100) is configured with a plurality of network communication capabilities through an Internet Protocol (IP) address and a Media Access Control (MAC) address [see at least paras. 0014-0021, 0199 Kanarellis; since Kanarellis and Hick provide PoE, Bluetooth and internet connection, the device must have IP and MAC address; in addition, a device connected to Internet is notorious well-known to have IP address and MAC address. The official notice of the foregoing fact is hereby taken.], thereby facilitating network-based control, measurement, and monitoring [see at least paras. 0014-0021, and claims of Kanarellis].
Regarding claim 6, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) of claim 1, wherein the predefined operational temperature range is between -40 degrees Celsius (°C) and +55 degrees Celsius (°C) [see at least para. 0116 Kanarellis].
Regarding claim 7, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) of claim 1, wherein each channel is configured to provide the constant voltage output of 12 VDC or 24 VDC [12VDC or 24 VDC are notorious well-known DC voltages, see Wendt Col. 6 lines 61-62].
Regarding claim 8, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) of claim 1, except wherein each channel is configured to provide the constant current of 350 mA, 700 MA, or 1050 mA. However, it’s merely a design choice to have each channel to provide the constant current of 350 mA, 700 MA, or 1050 mA. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) of claim 1, wherein the each channel of the five-output channel (102) is configured to transmit, receive, or process signals, data or instructions for controlling or regulating separate aspects of one or more interconnected devices [see POE Kanarellis].
Regarding claim 10, the combination discussed above discloses the assembly (100) of claim 1, wherein the five-output channel (102) is configured to control one or more of a Red-Green-Blue-White (RGBW) fixture, a color tuning fixture, or a monochromatic fixture [see emergency LED lights, para. 0146 Kanarellis], and to deliver up to 90 Watts of power [IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection rely on a new reference, Goergen et al. (US 2019/0312751), which was not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, Applicant argues:
‘The Office Action attempts to equate operation of a lighting fixture at constant brightness with the claimed constant voltage and constant current functionality. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Maintaining a lighting fixture at a constant brightness cannot be equated to a controller architecture having five independently configurable channels, each configured to provide respective and distinct constant voltage and constant current outputs. Rather, amended claim 1 requires a specific five-channel controller architecture in which each individual output channel independently maintains constant voltage and constant current outputs for Ethernet-based lighting control across multiple lighting applications.’
However, Wendt discloses to provide an output having constant voltage and constant current [Col. 10, lines 45-53]. Wendt does not explicitly disclose each channel configure to having constant voltage and constant current. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Co. v, Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis and the official notice in accordance with the teaching of Wendt regarding an output value to loads in order to conquer overload [Col. 10, lines 45-53].
Applicant argues:
‘Hick nowhere discloses or suggests "a PoE±± input passthrough port (101) for powering and controlling one or more PoE+ compatible devices, wherein the PoE++ input passthrough port is compliant with IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Hick merely describes conventional PoE input/output arrangements operating under corresponding PoE standards. In fact, Hick operates under IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at standards and merely references IEEE 802.3bt as an "upcoming standard." (See paragraph [0005] of Hick).
Accordingly, Hick does not disclose any interoperability arrangement involving a PoE++ input passthrough port configured to provide both power and control to PoE+ compatible devices. In other words, Hick fails to disclose any forward-compatible or backward-compatible architecture between different PoE generations, in a manner recited in amended claim 1.’
However, it’s well-known to implement a newer standard in order to improve the device. For example, Goergen discloses the advantage of IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard [para. 0032, higher output power]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kanarellis, Hick, the official notice and Wendt in accordance with the teaching of Goergen regarding IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard in order to provide higher output power [para. 0032].
Applicant argues:
‘Further, Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's reliance on Official Notice. Under MPEP § 2144.03, Official Notice unsupported by documentary evidence is appropriate only for facts that are capable of "instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well- known."
However, the presently claimed subject matter is not directed merely to the existence of PoE++ technology in general. Rather, amended claim I specifically recites a PoE++ input passthrough port compliant with IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard and configured for powering and controlling one or more PoE+ compatible devices. Compliance with IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard involves specific technical requirements including defined power delivery levels, power negotiation protocols, and transmission using all four twisted pairs of an Ethernet cable. Such specific architectural and protocol-level requirements are not facts of "notorious character" that may properly be supplied through Official Notice alone.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner provide documentary evidence establishing that a PoE++ input passthrough port compliant with IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard for powering and controlling one or more PoE+ compatible devices, in a manner now recited in amended claim 1, was known or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’
However, the prior office action has provided that Crenshaw (US 9941737) discloses the improvement of PoE++ [see Col. 1, lines 36-48]. In addition, Goergen discloses the advantage of IEEE 802.3bt Class 8 standard [para. 0032, higher output power]. Also, please see claim 1 rejection.
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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights