DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 14 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “external conditions, such as time of day or environment brightness”. Examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. Therefore, the examples recited in the claim render the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “third-party devices such as Alexa™ or Google Assistant™”. Examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. Therefore, the examples recited in the claim render the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Altonen teaches an LED lighting control system, comprising:
a multifunctional LED control panel (Fig. 2, [0124] control device 200) integrated with existing LED lighting setups (Fig. 1, [0115] a lighting control system 100);
a remote control (Fig. 1, 118, [0122] the handheld remote control device 118) with an interface for adjusting brightness ([0121] intensity), color temperature ([121] color), and lighting effects ([0115] one or more of the lighting loads (e.g., and/or other electrical loads) according to one or more configurable presets or scenes), operable via infrared telecommunication ([0145] IR transmitter/receiver);
a smartphone application compatible with WIFI or internet (Fig. 2, [0156] an external device, e.g. a mobile application), configured to enable remote access ([0156] a remote control command), dynamic lighting customization ([0156] changing operating mode in response to a control signal from an external device), scheduling ([0119] APM, a preset, fade-on/off time), and synchronization with external media ([0115] predefined entertainment settings such as music selection); and
a wall switch controlling selected functionalities (Fig. 2, [025] the control device 200).
Regarding claim 16, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Baaijens (US 2013/0162172 A1).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations in claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen further teaches the system, wherein the remote control comprises:
power buttons for turning the system on or off ([0125] an air-gap switch coupled in series between a power source); and
optional buttons for controlling brightness ([0135] the slider knob 242), temperature ([0157] a color temperature control) and lighting modes ([0157] intensity/color control modes).
However, Altonen does not explicitly teach the system comprising hue buttons for selecting or modifying light colors.
Baaijens teaches a system, wherein a remote control comprises hue buttons ([0043] remote control generates a control signal, [0045] button on the remote control) for selecting or modifying light colors ([0045] user to adjust or fine-tune the lighting effect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to fulfill a need for a more intuitive way to control a color variation of a color adjustable illumination device (Baaijens, [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations in claim 2 are taught by Altonen in view of Baaijens.
Baaijens further teaches the system, wherein the hue button controls:
a red hue button ([0045], [0040] a push button, switch or slider; [0054] adjustable RGBW);
a green hue button ([0045], [0040] a push button, switch or slider; [0054] adjustable RGBW);
a blue hue button ([0045], [0040] a push button, switch or slider; [0054] adjustable RGBW);
a white hue button ([0045], [0040] a push button, switch or slider; [0054] adjustable RGBW); and
a variable hue button for generating automatically changing colors ([0012] computer program).
variation of a color adjustable illumination device (Baaijens, [0005]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Baaijens (US 2013/0162172 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 2024/0032170 A1).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations in claim 2 are taught by Altonen in view of Baaijens.
Baaijens further teaches the system, wherein the optional buttons include:
a dimmer button for increasing or decreasing brightness ([0055] dimming levels);
a temperature button for adjusting between cool and warm light settings ([0035] color saturation).
Altonen in view of Baaijens does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the optional buttons include:
a mode button for selecting predetermined lighting configurations; and
a favorite button for saving custom lighting settings.
Barnes teaches a system comprising:
a mode for selecting predetermined lighting configurations ([0004] an adjustable vibrancy mode); and
a favorite mode for saving custom lighting settings ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Barnes to the teachings of Altonen in view of Baaijens so that the user may interact with a graphical user interface to accurately and efficiently configure the control system (Barnes, [0003]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen further teaches the system, wherein the smartphone application ([0156] a mobile application residing on a smartphone and/or tablet) includes:
adjusting colors ([0117] a full color control) and brightness ([0151] dimming control);
scene selecting predetermined atmospheres ([0115] presets or scenes);
music synchronizing lighting with sound ([0115] presets or scenes correspond to music selection/volume settings); and
schedule setting timers and automation ([0119] programming mode).
Altonen does not explicitly teach the functions of the smartphone application are from a home page, a scene page, a music page, and a schedule page.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to understand/expect that various functions of a smartphone application are launched from a page of the application as well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen further teaches the system, wherein the home page comprises:
a color spectrum panel for color selection ([0157] a full color spectrum control mode);
pre-set color buttons for quick access ([0118] predetermined settings for a color);
a brightness control slider for individual color components ([0128], [0129] slider actuator, slider knob); and
a switch button for turning the lights on or off ([0123] switch for turning on and off).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Anthony (US 2016/0088708 A1).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen further teaches the system, wherein the scene page includes predetermined atmospheres ([0115]).
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system wherein the scene page includes an option to download additional atmospheres.
Anthony teaches a system wherein a page includes an option to download additional atmospheres ([0045] the scene control process is configured to download the scene control data corresponding to the virtual environment from a web service accessible via the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Anthony to the teachings of Altonen in order to recreate a fully immersive virtual environment within a given area of lighting system which may include for instance, dressing rooms in retail clothing stores, night clubs, trade show booths, bowling halls, or virtually physical space as desired (Anthony, [0020], [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Jang (US 2016/0088708 A1).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the music page is configured to: synchronize lighting effects with the rhythm or tempo of ambient sound; or adapt lighting dynamically using sound data captured by a microphone.
Jang teaches a system, wherein the light control synchronizes lighting effects with the rhythm or tempo of ambient sound; or adapts lighting dynamically using sound data captured by a microphone (page 13, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Altonen in order to provide a convenient user environment to the users using the multi-enterprise and to create various added-value to the multi-enterprise owners (Jang, page 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 18, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Giltaca (WO 2011/094837 A1).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the schedule page includes:
a countdown option for starting lighting effects after a specified delay;
a timer for defining the start, end, and duration of lighting sessions; and
an execution cycle option for repeating lighting sequences on specified days and times.
Giltaca teaches a system, wherein the functions includes:
a countdown option for starting lighting effects after a specified delay ([0028] a time delay countdown);
a timer for defining the start, end, and duration of lighting sessions ([0029] a set time duration); and
an execution cycle option for repeating lighting sequences on specified days and times ([0053] reference of time-schedule).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Giltaca to the teachings of Altonen in order to provide a more flexible, convenient and economical means to reduce energy consumption (Giltaca, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the wall switch includes multi-click functionality to toggle between predetermined lighting modes.
Giltaca teaches a system, wherein the functions include wherein the wall switch includes multi-click functionality to toggle between predetermined lighting modes ([0042] toggle between stand-alone and networked modes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Giltaca to the teachings of Altonen in order to provide a more flexible, convenient and economical means to reduce energy consumption (Giltaca, Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Sooch (US 20260089820 A1).
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the remote control features an indicator light that blinks to confirm the transmission of commands to the LED control panel.
Sooch teaches a system, wherein the remote control features an indicator light that blinks to confirm the transmission of commands to the LED control panel ([0078] each physical keypad to blink).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sooch to the teachings of Altonen in order to provide a more flexible, convenient user experience.
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Clymer (US 2023/0024518 A1).
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the smartphone application supports integration with third-party control devices, including voice assistants.
Clymer teaches a system, wherein an application supports integration with third-party control devices, including voice assistants ([0045] A user may audibly interface with such a device (e.g., through voice commands) which in turn may communicate with a network device 280a (e.g., a computing server of the third-party integrator).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Clymer to the teachings of Altonen as it is desirable to communicate with and control load control systems from a network device (Clymer, [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the smartphone application provides dynamic lighting effects based on external conditions, such as time of day or environmental brightness.
Clymer teaches a system, wherein an application provides dynamic lighting effects based on external conditions, such as time of day or environmental brightness ([0038] one or more daylight sensors, window sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Clymer to the teachings of Altonen as it is desirable to communicate with and control load control systems from a network device (Clymer, [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the smartphone application enables users to share saved lighting configurations with other devices or users.
Clymer teaches a system, wherein the smartphone application enables users to share saved lighting configurations with other devices or users ([0030] Such communications by the system controller 150 may include programming/configuration data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Clymer to the teachings of Altonen as it is desirable to communicate with and control load control systems from a network device (Clymer, [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 12. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altonen (US 2023/0036482 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20190023240 A).
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Altonen.
Altonen does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the control panel enables simultaneous management of multiple LED lighting setups.
Hwang teaches a system, wherein an application enables simultaneous management of multiple LED lighting setups (page 6, paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hwang to the teachings of Altonen as in order to control and manage the lighting system with ease and convenience (Hwang, page 6, paragraph 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights