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 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616).
Regarding Claim 1, Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) discloses a lighting apparatus, comprising:
a rectifier bridge circuit (DB) for converting an AC power (AC voltage) to a DC power (DC voltage) (paragraphs [0032], [0038], fig. 1);
a light source comprising a plurality of LED modules (LED devices) of different types (daylight or warm white) (fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], [0032]);
a LED controller (LED driver IC) for generating a plurality of driving currents based on the DC power to respectively control the plurality of LED modules of different types (paragraphs [0039], [0040]);
a dimmer detector circuit for detecting whether a dimmer is coupled to the lighting apparatus (measure against the malfunction of the TRIAC dimmer, paragraph [0011]); and
a bleeder circuit (bleeder circuit BLD) coupled to the dimmer detector circuit (measure), wherein the bleeder circuit is configured to be turned on when the dimmer detector circuit detects that the dimmer is coupled to the lighting apparatus (paragraphs [0011], [0035], [0042], [0045]) for fixing a signal distortion for power input (alleviate a flicker) to the LED controller, wherein the signal distortion is caused by the dimmer (TRIAC dimmer) (paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sumitani discloses the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signal distortion (flicker) of the AC power being chopped by the dimmer (paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0058], [0069], [0077]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sumitani discloses the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED controller circuit comprises a protection circuit for stabilizing input current (paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0107]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sumitani discloses the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED controller includes a flicker mitigation module that adjusts the driving currents (abstract) to maintain a constant and flicker- free light output (flicker of the LED module comes not to occur, paragraphs [0080], [0069]), even under varying input power conditions caused by the dimmer (Triac).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Janik et al. (2026/0113820).
Regarding Claim 2, Sumitani discloses the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the multiple types of LED modules include a cool white LED module (daylight) and a warm white LED module (paragraph [0031]) but does not explicitly disclose LED modules include a red LED module, a blue LED module, a green LED module, a cool white LED module.
However, Janik et al. (2026/0113820) discloses LED modules including a red LED module (paragraph [0035]), a blue LED module (paragraph [0035]), a green LED module (abstract), cool LED module (paragraph [0053], abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided multiple LED modules in various colors in Sumintai in order to emit more desired color of light as taught by Janik.
Regarding Claim 13, as discussed above, Sumitani essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED controller is further configured to dynamically adjust the plurality of driving currents based on a detected color temperature setting, enabling the light source to produce a tunable white light by combining the outputs of the plurality of LED modules.
However, Janik teaches the LED controller is further configured to dynamically adjust the plurality of driving currents (“the controller 206 may accordingly adjust (i.e., increase or decrease) the current provided to the purple light LEDs 220 by the driver”, paragraph [0038]) based on a detected color temperature setting (CCT setting, paragraphs [0002], [0038]), enabling the light source to produce a tunable white light by combining the outputs of the plurality of LED modules (white light color tuning may be performed by combining warm white light and cool white light, paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided LED controller of Janik in Sumitani in order to generate a desired color based on temperature setting as taught by Janik.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Sun et al. (2021/0315077).
Regarding Claim 14, as discussed above, Sumitani essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dimmer detector circuit further includes a signal analysis module capable of distinguishing between leading-edge and trailing-edge dimmer; wherein the LED controller adjusts the plurality of driving currents based on the dimmer type detected to ensure compatibility and optimal performance.
However, Sun et al. (2021/0315077) discloses a dimming mode detection circuit to determine leading edge and trailing edge in dimming modes (paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0027] to [0040]), and LED drive circuit (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the dimming mode detection circuit of Sun in Sumitani in order to improve dimming precision as taught by Sun.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Toccacei (2009/0290391).
Regarding Claim 15, as discussed above, Toccacei essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bleeder circuit further comprises an adaptive feedback mechanism configured to minimize power loss by adjusting its operation based on the real-time impedance of the dimmer coupled to the lighting apparatus.
However, Toccacei (2009/0290391) discloses that the bleeder circuit (bleed resistor RB) further comprises an adaptive feedback mechanism configured to minimize power loss (minimize power loss) by adjusting its operation based on the real-time impedance (impedance Z2) of the dimmer coupled to the lighting apparatus (paragraphs [0023], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the bleed resistor of Toccacei in Sumitani to minimize power loss in order to obtain power efficiency as taught by Toccace.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Kalita et al. (12,701,641).
Regarding Claim 16, as discussed above, Sumitani essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED controller is configured to independently modulate the intensity of each LED module based on ambient light detected by an integrated light sensor, providing automatic brightness adjustment for energy efficiency.
However, Kalita et al. (12,701,641) discloses a LED controller is configured to independently modulate the intensity of each LED module (Col. 2, lines 43-52, Col. 4, line 59 to Col. 5, line 22) based on ambient light detected by an integrated light sensor, providing automatic brightness adjustment for energy efficiency (Col. 35, lines 37-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a ambient sensor of Kalita in Sumitani to independently control the illumination units to turn on bright light source when it is dark (night mode) and turn off or lower the illumination when it is in day mode in order to save power as taught by Kalita.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Saes (2017/0202063).
Regarding Claim 18, as discussed above, Sumitani essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LED controller further comprises an emergency mode circuit that detects power interruptions and switches the lighting apparatus to a low-power mode using stored energy in a backup capacitor to illuminate a subset of the LED modules.
However, Saes (2017/0202063) discloses that the LED controller further comprises an emergency mode circuit (backup emergency) that detects power interruptions (power cut) and switches the lighting apparatus to a low-power mode using stored energy in a backup capacitor (capacitor) to illuminate a subset of the LED modules (paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an emergency power backup comprising capacitor for storing power of Saes in Sumitani in order to continue deliver power to the lighting circuit in case an interruption (e.g. power cut) as taught by Saes.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitani et al. (2012/0326616) in view of Deng (2019/0353337).
Regarding Claim 19, Sumitani does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a manual switch operably connected to the dimmer detector circuit, wherein the manual switch allows a user to manually indicate whether a dimmer is connected, and the LED controller adjusts the plurality of driving currents accordingly to optimize compatibility and performance.
However, Deng discloses the manual switch allows a user to manually indicate whether a dimmer is connected, and the LED controller adjusts the plurality of driving currents accordingly to optimize compatibility and performance (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a manual switch of Deng in Sumitani in order to turn off the system in order to save power or provide maintenance check as taught by Deng.
Regarding Claim 20, Sumitani does not explicitly disclose the lighting apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a manual switch for user input to override the dimmer detector circuit, wherein the manual switch enables a predefined non-dimmer mode to bypass dimmer-related adjustments by the LED controller, ensuring stable operation in scenarios where a dimmer is not used.
However, Deng (2019/0353337) discloses a manual switch to override dimmer detector (dimmer) wherein the manual switch enables a predefined non-dimmer mode (on/off) to bypass dimmer-related adjustments by the LED controller, ensuring stable operation in scenarios where a dimmer is not used (paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a manual switch of Deng in Sumitani in order to turn off the system in order to save power or provide maintenance check as taught by Deng.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 4-7, 8-10, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
