REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed on May 22, 2025 is defective because it fails to identify at least one new error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Furthermore, the MPEP 1444 states:
(C) It is not sufficient for an oath/declaration to merely state “this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the changes made in the disclosure.” Rather, the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error. In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. See In re Constant, 827 F.2d 728, 729, 3 USPQ2d 1479 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 894 (1987). Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.
(D) For continuation or divisional reissue applications:
(1) Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the reissue oath/declaration from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the reissue oath/declaration should be accepted by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) without further evaluation, because it is an oath/declaration, albeit improper under 35 U.S.C. 251. The examiner should, however, reject the claims of the continuation reissue application under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based on an oath/declaration that does not identify an error being corrected by the continuation reissue application, and should require a new oath/declaration that identifies a new error or a statement explaining compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) if appropriate. If the same error corrected in the parent is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012. For these applications, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 is not needed. For a reissue application filed before September 16, 2012, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 will be needed to waive pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) in order to rely on the same error identified in the parent but being corrected in a different way. See 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2) for reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(e) for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012. One of form paragraphs 14.01.01, 14.01.02, or 14.01.03 may be used.
In this instance, the Applicant filed Oath/Declaration which does not recite the identical error as the one present in the parent reissue applications, however as indicated below, very similar claims have already been filed in the previous reissue applications (see ODP rejections below). Accordingly, the error being corrected and relied upon in this reissue application as indicated in the 5/22/2025 Oath/Dec “Independent claim 32 differs from the patented claim 16 by being directed to an LED illumination device controller, and reciting first and second portions of a non-illumination period and measuring a photocurrent induced in a photodetector. Independent claim 33 differs from the patented claim 16 by being directed to an LED illumination device controller, and reciting an intensity scale factor and omitting the patent claim's limitation regarding turning the LEDs off to produce periodic intervals” appears to be already corrected in the RE49246 patent and being corrected in the 17/962,830 reissue application.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the oath/declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
ADS
The Application Data Sheet filed on January 17, 2025 has been considered and entered into the record.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances where applicants have included lexicographic definitions, either express or implied. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which Applicants are acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01.IV.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which would invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim 32 is 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.
More specifically, claim 32 recites “in a second portion of the non-illuminated period: provide an operative drive current to each of the LEDs; and measure a photocurrent induced in a photodetector”. This phrase appears to contradict itself because if the LEDs are in the “non-illuminated period” it would mean that no or insufficient drive current is supplied to them and not the “operative” drive current. Moreover, if it is a “non-illuminated period”, how could the photocurrent be induced in the photodetector.
In an effort to advance the prosecution, the Examiner interprets this period as an “illumination period” where operative drive current is supplied to produce the illumination which is then detected by a photodetector.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,660. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to LED illumination device measuring and determining expected LED wavelength by utilizing calibration table.
US Reissue Application No. 19/027,720
US Patent No. 9,392,660
Claim 32: An LED illumination device controller for controlling a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), the controller comprising: a memory; and
controller circuitry to: drive the plurality of LEDs with a drive current sufficient to produce illumination for each of a plurality of sequential illumination periods separated by a non-illumination period; in a first portion of the non-illumination period: provide a non-operative drive current to each of the plurality of LEDs; and measure a respective forward voltage across each of the LEDs;
in a second portion of the non-illuminated period: provide an operative drive current to each of the LEDs; and measure a photocurrent induced in a photodetector; and
determine an expected LED wavelength and expected LED intensity corresponding to the measured forward voltage across each of the LEDs and the drive current provided to each of the LEDs using a table of stored calibration values that correlate wavelength and intensity to drive current at a plurality of different reference temperatures.
Claim 12: An illumination device, comprising: a plurality of emission light emitting diodes (LEDs) configured to produce illumination for the illumination device; an LED driver and receiver circuit coupled to the plurality of emission LEDs and configured for successively applying a plurality of different drive currents to each of the emission LEDs, one emission LED at a time, to produce illumination at different levels of brightness; an interface configured for receiving wavelength and intensity values, which are measured by an external calibration tool upon receiving the illumination produced by each of the emission LEDs at each of the plurality of different drive currents; and a storage medium configured for storing at least a subset of the wavelength and intensity values obtained for each of the emission LEDs within a table of calibration values.
Additionally claim 20 recites “receiver circuit is coupled to the photodetector and further configured for: measuring photocurrents that are induced on the photodetector by the illumination produced by each of the emission LEDs at each of the different drive currents”
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 32 of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE49246. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to LED illumination device measuring and determining expected LED wavelength by utilizing calibration table.
US Reissue Application No. 19/027,720
US Reissue Application No. RE49246
Claim 32: An LED illumination device controller for controlling a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), the controller comprising: a memory; and
controller circuitry to: drive the plurality of LEDs with a drive current sufficient to produce illumination for each of a plurality of sequential illumination periods separated by a non-illumination period; in a first portion of the non-illumination period: provide a non-operative drive current to each of the plurality of LEDs [2]; and measure a respective forward voltage across each of the LEDs;
in a second portion of the non-illuminated period: provide an operative drive current to each of the LEDs; and measure a photocurrent induced in a photodetector; and
determine an expected LED wavelength and expected LED intensity corresponding to the measured forward voltage across each of the LEDs and the drive current provided to each of the LEDs using a table of stored calibration values that correlate wavelength and intensity to drive current at a plurality of different reference temperatures [1].
Claim 16: An illumination device, comprising: a plurality of emission light emitting diodes (LEDs);
a storage medium configured for storing a table of calibration values correlating wavelength and intensity to drive current at a plurality of different temperatures for each of the plurality of emission LEDs [1];
an LED driver and receiver circuit configured for applying respective drive currents to the plurality of emission LEDs to drive the plurality of emission LEDs substantially continuously to produce illumination, periodically turning the plurality of emission LEDs off for short durations of time to produce periodic intervals [2], and applying a non-operative drive current to each emission LED, one LED at a time, during the a first portion of the periodic intervals to measure a forward voltage presently developed across each emission LED; and
a control circuit configured for determining, for each emission LED, an expected wavelength value and an expected intensity value corresponding to the forward voltage presently measured across the emission LED and the drive current currently applied to the emission LED by applying one or more interpolation techniques to the table of stored calibration values.
Similarly, claim 32 discloses similar limitations to claim 16 and additionally teaches a photodetector for conducting measurements.
Claims 33 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 32 of U.S. Reissued Patent Application No. 17/962,830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to LED illumination device measuring and determining expected LED wavelength by utilizing calibration table.
US Reissue Application No. 19/027,720
US Reissue Application No. 17/962,830
Claim 33: An LED illumination device controller for controlling a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs), the controller comprising:
a memory; and
controller circuitry to:
periodically, for each of the plurality of LEDs:
measure an operating temperature of the LED;
measure a forward voltage developed across the LED;
determine an expected wavelength value and an expected intensity value corresponding to the measured operating temperature of the LED, the measured forward voltage across the LED, and a drive current supplied to the LED by applying one or more interpolation techniques to a table of stored calibration values corresponding to an emission spectra of the LED, wherein the table of stored calibration values correlates wavelength and intensity to drive current at a plurality of different reference temperatures; determine an intensity scale factor by dividing the determined expected intensity value by a calculated intensity value for the LED; and determine an adjusted intensity value by scaling a received intensity input using the determined intensity factor; and
cause an operatively coupled LED driver circuit to provide a drive current to each LED to achieve the adjusted intensity value.
Claim 32: A method for controlling an illumination device comprising a plurality of emission light emitting diodes (LEDs), the method comprising: periodically, for each emission LED included in the illumination device: measuring an operating temperature of the emission LED;
measuring a forward voltage presently developed across the emission LED; determining an expected wavelength value and an expected intensity value corresponding to the measured operating temperature of the emission LED, the measured forward voltage across the emission LED and a drive current supplied to the emission LED by applying one or more interpolation techniques to a table of stored calibration values corresponding to an emission spectra on the emission LED, the table of stored calibration values correlating wavelength and intensity to drive current at a plurality of different reference temperatures;
determining an intensity scale factor by dividing the determined expected intensity value by a calculated intensity value for the emission LED; and determining an adjusted intensity value by scaling a received intensity input using the determined intensity factor; and
causing an operatively coupled LED driver circuit to provide a drive current to each emission LED to achieve the adjusted intensity value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 would be allowed if the rejections recited above would be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 32, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious an LED illumination device as disclosed in claim 32, further having controller circuitry to: drive plurality of LEDs with a drive current sufficient to produce illumination for each of a plurality of sequential illumination periods separated by a non-illumination period;
in a first portion of the non-illumination period: provide a non-operative drive current to each of the plurality of LEDs; and measure a respective forward voltage across each of the LEDs;
in a second portion of the non-illuminated period: provide an operative drive current to each of the LEDs; and measure a photocurrent induced in a photodetector; and
determine an expected LED wavelength and expected LED intensity using a table of stored calibration values correlating wavelength, intensity and reference temperature.
With respect to claim 33, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious an LED illumination device as disclosed in claim 33, further having controller circuitry to: periodically, for each of the plurality of LEDs:
measure an operating temperature of the LED;
measure a forward voltage developed across the LED;
determine an expected wavelength value and an expected intensity value corresponding to the measured operating temperature of the LED, the measured forward voltage across the LED, and a drive current supplied to the LED by applying one or more interpolation techniques to a table of stored calibration values and determine an intensity scale factor by dividing the determined expected intensity value by a calculated intensity value for the LED.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA M LIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8445. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184.
All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed:
Patent Center
Patent Center (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center) to file and manage your applications and requests.
By Mail to: Mail Stop Reissue
Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Bulding
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/H.B.P/
Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights