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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claim listing filed on June 10th, 2026. Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
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 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KINSTLE, III (USPGPUB No. 2018/0341297 A1) in view of Coleman et al. (USPGPUB No. 2021/0112647 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Kinstle discloses a transmission line device, comprising {“smart computer case 100”, see Fig. 1 [0011], 1st sentence}:
a connector including {“MCU 101 communicates with the host computer [a connector on] USB bus through USB interface”, see Fig. 1, [0019]}:
a first connection interface {“USB interface 204”, see Fig. 2 [0019]}; and
a circuit board {“probes the USB bus [on an appropriate circuit board] of the host computer”, see Fig. 3 [0021], last two sentences} coupled to the first connection interface {“smart computer case [board] has three slots available for [coupling to] installing RGB LED lighting strips and only two RGB LED lighting strips have been installed in the smart computer case,”, see Fig. 3 [0025]}; and
a transmission cable {“an end-user may configure the RGB lighting effects, and fan speed control through a user interface [and an appropriate transmission cable].”, see Figs. 2 and 4 [0019], last two sentences} connected to the connector with a first end of the transmission cable {first send of said couple as claimed “end-user's configuration inputs can be communicated to MCU 101 through USB interface 204,”, see Fig. 2 [0019], last sentence}, including:
an electric transmission part coupled {“micro controller unit”, see Figs. 1, 2, and 4 [0028], 1st sentence} to the first connection interface through the circuit board {“micro controller unit associated [connected] with the control and monitoring of various components”, see Figs. 1, 2, and 4 [0028], 1st sentence} and configured to transmit at least one electrical signal {“there be only one LED port through which MCU 101 can control each of the addressable RGB LEDs associated with any lighting” through an appropriate electrical signal, see Fig. 4 [0028]} from the first connection interface to a second end of the transmission cable {“there may be more than [second end] 2 LED ports for controlling addressable”, see Fig. 4 [0028]};
Kinstle does not appear to explicitly disclose a light-emitting part coupled to the circuit board and having at least one light-emitting element; wherein the light-emitting part receives, from the circuit board, a light control signal configured to control the at least one light-emitting element.
However, Coleman discloses a light-emitting part coupled {“AVLED comprises a multi-sensor hardware component comprising two or more sensors” ([0106], 1st sentence) such AVLED includes light-emitting part “inorganic light emitting diode, organic light emitting diode, active matrix organic light emitting diode, micro-light” ([0034], 1st two sentences)} to the circuit board {“integrated component that can be placed on a rigid or flexible circuit board”, see Fig. 3 and 4 [0106]} and having at least one light-emitting element {“AVLED comprises a spatial array light source comprising a micro-LED array wherein each micro-LED”, see Fig. 3 and 4 [0037]}; wherein the light-emitting part receives, from the circuit board, a light control signal {“[light control signal] determining the ambient lighting map includes turning off (or reducing) light flux output for one or more (preferably all) light emitting devices in environment”, [0289], 1st sentence} configured to control {“emitting devices controllable by the system comprising one or more AVLEDs”, see Figs. 3 and 4 [0289]} the at least one light-emitting element {“controllable by the system comprising one or more AVLEDs, light emitting devices with a constant relative angular light output profile…”, see Figs. 3 and 4 [0289]}.
Kinstle and Coleman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing/coordinating light source(s) electronically.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinstle and Coleman before him or her, to modify Kinstle’s “smart computer case 100” along with “micro controller unit” incorporating Coleman’s “light feature map” and appropriate control signals (see Figs. 3 and 4, [0289]).
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement a processor on the AVLED or remote to the AVLED and in communication with the AVLED processes the image or light sensor input to identify one or more objects in the environment, determines one or more angular bins corresponding to the one or more objects by choosing an illuminance and/or color between the illuminance values for the spatial zones adjacent the central spatial zone being evaluated such that there is a smoother transition (no harsh illuminance or color boundaries, or visibly bright, dark, or colored spots or regions (Coleman [0241] paraphrased).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Coleman with Kinstle to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Kinstle discloses wherein the connector further includes a light control interface coupled to the circuit board {“discover any [light control interface] smart case controllers (e.g., MCU 101) installed in the host computer”, see Fig. 3, [0021], last two sentences}; and wherein the light control signal is provided to the light-emitting part {“there be only one LED port through which MCU 101 can control each of the addressable RGB LEDs associated with any lighting” through an appropriate electrical signal, see Fig. 4 [0028]} from the light control interface through the circuit board {“smart computer case is flashed onto MCU 101 when MCU 101 is factory installed [along with the circuit board]”, see Fig. 3, [0027], 1st sentence}.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and Kinstle discloses wherein the light control interface is connected to a main part of the connector {“[main part] the LED hub/data distributor device”, see Fig. 4, [0029], 2nd sentence} through an extending cable {“[extending] controlled by MCU 101 by connecting strips of RGB LED lighting”, see Fig. 4, [0029], 2nd sentence}.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Kinstle discloses wherein the light control interface is configured to connect an electrical device providing the light control signal {“MCU 101 can control the color, intensity and animation effects of each [electrical device] RGB LED individually and independently of the control of the other RGB LEDs”, see Figs. 1 and 2, [0017], 2nd sentence}; and wherein the light control signal corresponds to a status information {“analog temperature sensors, MCU 101 measures the [status information] voltage drop of the resistors in the temperature sensor”, see Fig. 2, [0019]} of the electrical device {“one or more strips of RGB LED lighting (not shown in FIG. 1) may be installed in any desired location on or in smart computer case 100”, see Fig. 1, [0014], 1st sentence}.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and Kinstle discloses wherein the first connection interface is configured to connect to the electrical device {“MCU 101 can control the color, intensity and animation effects of each [electrical device] RGB LED individually and independently of the control of the other RGB LEDs”, see Figs. 1 and 2, [0017], 2nd sentence} and receive the at least one electrical signal {“there be only one LED port through which MCU 101 can control each of the addressable RGB LEDs associated with any lighting” through an appropriate electrical signal, see Fig. 4 [0028]}; and wherein the status information includes a status for the electrical device {“analog temperature sensors, MCU 101 measures the [status information] voltage drop of the resistors in the temperature sensor”, see Fig. 2, [0019]} transmitting the at least one electrical signal {“The user interface also displays temperature output [represented as electrical signal] from the temperature sensors installed in the smart computer case”, see Fig. 3, [0026], last sentence}.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and Kinstle discloses wherein the light control interface is selected from an Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface {“housed by the smart computer case through USB interface 204.”, see Fig. 4, [0028], last three sentences} or an Addressable Red, Green, Blue (ARGB) interface {“each of the addressable RGB LEDs”, see Fig. 4, [0028]}.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Coleman discloses wherein the light control signal is configured to control a luminescence spectrum, a luminescence frequency, a brightness {“compares the luminance, color, estimated color and/or estimated illuminance of two neighboring regions (or spatial zones) (and optionally [configured to control] increase the brightness if needed”, [0185], 1st sentence}, or a combination thereof of the light-emitting part {Examiner’s note: recitation “or” term renders this dependent claim as a Markush claim, thus the reference needs only disclose one group member to address the claim}.
Referring to claims 9-14, and 16 are system claims reciting claim functionality corresponding to the device claims of claims 1-7, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7 recited above, inter alia, as per claim 16, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Coleman discloses wherein the electrical device further includes a light control output interface {“lighting effects of the RGB computer case fans and the installed RGB LED strips are [outputted and] visible from outside the smart computer case 100”, see Fig. 1 [0014], last sentence} arranged on a case of the electrical device {“smart computer case 100”, see Fig. 1 [0011], 2nd sentence} and coupled to the light control signal source {“ discover any smart case controllers (e.g., MCU 101) installed in the host computer”, see Fig. 3 [0021], last two sentences}.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Coleman discloses wherein the light control signal source is selected from a mainboard {“single hardware component (such as an integrated component that can be placed on a rigid or [mainboard] flexible circuit board”, [0106]}, display board {“”, see Fig. []} or power supply of the electrical device {“AVLED… a component of one or more selected from the group: … computer, power supply, battery,”, [0283], 1st two sentences}.
Referring to claims 18, 19, and 20 are apparatus claims reciting claim functionality corresponding to the device claims of claims 9-17, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claims 9-17 recited above.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KINSTLE, III in view of Coleman and further in view of Tang et al. (USPGPUB No. 2022/0157222 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tang).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated however neither Kinstle or Coleman appears to disclose wherein the first connection interface is selected from a High Definition Multimedia interface (HDMI), a DisplayPort (DP) interface, or a Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface.
Furthermore, Tang discloses wherein the first connection interface {first connection interface “Redrivers may include an equalizer (such as equalizer circuitry, an equalizer IC, etc.) to amplify [connection interface] high-frequency signal components of signals”, see Fig. 1, [0020]} is selected from a High Definition Multimedia interface (HDMI), a DisplayPort (DP) interface, or a Universal Serial Bus (USB) interface {“Redriver”/”equalizer” being the operative component selected during “step 812” as the ”turning on” mean selecting one of three “CTLE equalizers” ([0091], last sentence; [0092] 1st sentence)) where each equalizer per protocol “HDMI”, “DISPLAYPORT” and “USB” (see Fig. , [0019], last sentence}.
Kinstle/Coleman and Tang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing/coordinating light source(s) electronically.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinstle/Coleman and Tang before him or her, to modify Kinstle/Coleman’s device incorporating Tang’s “redriver 124” and functionality (see Figs. 8 and 9, [0085]).
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement a redriver including two or more equalizers as continuous time linear equalizers, which can be configured to implement continuous time linear equalization (Tang [0022], last sentence paraphrased) in order to achieve data transfers at various data rates with improved signal integrity and reduced performance loss (Tang [0024], last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tang with Kinstle/Coleman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As per claim 15 is a system claim reciting claim functionality corresponding to the device claims of claims 8, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 recited above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been considered but deemed moot in view of the following explanation:
Applicant alleges that the combination of references Kinstle, Coleman, and further later dependent features by Tang does not teach all the elements of claim 1, in particular, neither Kinstle nor Coleman discloses integrating a light-emitting part directly into or onto a transmission cable to achieve dynamic status display and so on without expanding connector volume (Remarks page 7, last two paragraph into page 8).
The Examiner will further expand on the claim interpretation and then draw parallels to the references, in particular Coleman and Kinstle where appropriate. Two issues present in the broad scope of claim 1, the first issue with the term “transmission line device” is only recited in the claim preamble, lacking antecedent basis and thereby not given much patentable weight outside of “device” claim or “transmission device”.
Additionally, the claim 1 preamble recites “comprising”, which treats the claim open-ended and including features/steps/functionality undisclosed in the claim as long as further facilitate the steps/structure/functionality disclosed in the claim. On the second issue, claim 1 last 4 lines recite “light-emitting part coupled to the circuit board and at least one light-emitting element, none of the claims elaborate what “portion” is coupled to the circuit board and rest in the cable, whether 50:50, 80:20, or 33:33:33 ratio between the cable, the circuit board, and the connector. The Examiner recommends further incorporated by the specification, to the extent whether “light-emitting part” is located in “the connector”, the “transmission cable”, or “first end of the cable” of claim 1.
The Examiner points out that the emphasis “without expanding connector volume” seems to imply “intended use” and currently not claimed implicitly or explicitly in any current claim listing.
On the note of “exceeding connector volume”, the Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification recognizes or concerned about the improvement (PGPUB [0003]) appears to be a blanket statement/generalization to a notable concern, without mete or merit as to the type of “setting light-emitting elements” or even how much larger or the type of connector will become. The Applicant’s solution to this concern in background Section involve Figures illustrating the “transmission line device” but as pointed out earlier in rebuttal, neither patentable weight in claim 1 nor the Examiner ascertain how the inclusion of “HDMI” in the “transmission line device” materially changes the cable volume (DP leads to 10% volume increase, USB to 20% volume change, to name a few examples not actually derived from the specification).
Claim 9 recitation “transmission line device” does have patentable weight as it is in the body of the claim, however the Applicant’s contention to “connector volume” still present already pointed out in claim 1.
Applicant also establishes legal basis disparaging Kinstle and Coleman inventive concept(s) meaning that a PHOSITA have no reason to combine such references (Remarks page 8, last full paragraph).
The Examiner further expand on the claim interpretation, noting that neither the claims nor the instant specification recites the term “personal computer”, “desktop”, or workstation; the closest acknowledgement to the instant specification Figures 6 and 8 looks like a personal computer derived/recognized from the specification “such as a computer motherboard” ([0051]) by admission of Examiner’s personal bias/experience; the instant specification other paragraphs/embodiment describe such electronic device “may be connected to an HDMI port of a computer (such as but not limited to)” (see Fig. 4, [0053]).
In other words, the Examiner interpretation this instant specification discloses “a computer” equivalently to databases, server racks, or even main frames as long as the chassis/electronic device functionally support “PCIE plate of a computer)” (PGPUB [0064]). Turning to the analogous art, the claimed transmission line device (of claim 1) incorporates an ARGB port without spelling out the acronym for “Addressable Red, Green, Blue” which was already cited in Kinstle [0028].
The Examiner further emphasizes that the claims were originally reciting “light control interface” prior to the amendment (and remains this form in the independent claim(s)); Coleman does not disclose the term “ARGB”, the Examiner noting that Coleman recites “AVLED” involving different types of LEDs that are addressable “group of: individually addressable angular bins” ([0067]) where such array “light sources for each angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an AVLED comprises one or more light sources emitting light within different wavelength bands, such as a red light emitting diode, a blue light emitting diode, a green light emitting diode, and a phosphor converted white light emitting” emitting light in the nanometer spectrum (Coleman [0038], 1st two sentences).
In summary, per claim 1 the contested references by claim interpretation rebutted above disclose an electronic device functionally performing/constituting the structure of a computer (laptop, desktop, rack server, database) including a connector and a cable with a light emitting part, where Coleman AVLED array of LEDs example embodiments include “estimated or calculated luminance or illuminance, estimated or calculated radiance or irradiance, and/or color or spectral information of the objects or contents of the environment (such as a desktop work plane)” or in a favorite of environments “AVLED or light emitting device may be installed, portable, mounted, mobile, or capable of being two or more of the aforementioned types” ([0041], 3rd sentence).
In another embodiment, Coleman AVLED is one or more selected from the group: light fixture, light bulb, replacement light bulb, light source (such as one or more described above), portable light emitting device, wireless light emitting device, [cable] wired light emitting device” ([0041], 2nd sentence, emphasis added by Examiner) with the circuit board arrangement “first substrate 1411 comprising a first set of light sources 1401 (such as micro-LEDs)” ([0304], 2nd sentence) with Kinstle ARGB to arrive at the current claims.
For these reasons the current ground of rejection(s) is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A. BARTELS whose telephone number is (571)270-3182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C. B./
Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights