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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
CLAIM 1:
In line 6, replace “the” before “output” with --an--.
In line 6, replace “the” after “and” with --a--.
In line 11, after “retrieve” insert --an--.
In line 11, at the end insert --;--.
In line 12, before each instance of “first” insert --the--.
In line 12, at the end insert --;--.
In line 13, at the end insert --;--.
In line 14, before “wait” insert --a--.
In line 14, replace “(half cycle time period - adjustment time)” with --equal to a half cycle time period minus the adjustment time;--.
In line 14, at the end insert --;--.
In line 15, after “period” insert --,--.
In line 16, at the end insert --;--.
In line 17, before “edge” insert --an--.
In line 17, at the end insert --;--.
In line 18, after “update” insert --the--.
In line 19, after “open” insert --the--.
CLAIM 2:
In line 3, replace “the” before “input” with --an--.
In line 3, replace “a” with --the--.
CLAIM 3:
In line 1, replace “circuit” with --circuitry--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 1, there is no teaching in the instant application or any parent patent document for which it claims priority of the control circuitry (1114) closing the first controllable switch (1510 and/or Q1520) of the first detect circuit (1118) to enable the first detect circuit as described in line 12 or opening the first controllable switch to disable the first detect circuit as described in line 19. The specification describes the first controllable switch as activating or deactivating based on an input voltage to provide zero cross feedback to the control circuitry. There is no teaching of the control circuitry having the ability to open or close the first controllable switch such that it enables or disables the first detect circuit.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
In re Claim 2, there is no teaching in the instant application or any parent patent document for which it claims priority of the control circuitry (1114) being capable of controlling the second controllable switch (1510 and/or Q1520) of the second detect circuit (1116) in any way. The second controllable switch as described by the specification turns on and off to provide zero cross feedback to the control circuitry based solely on the input from power source 1102.
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 2.
In re Claim 3, as discussed above, there is no teaching in the instant application or any parent patent document for which it claims priority of the control circuitry (1114) controlling the second controllable switch (1510 and/or Q1520) of the second detect circuit (1116) in any way.
The claims have been addressed as best as possible below.
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.
Claims 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1, lines 13 and 17-18 describe the control circuitry receiving both a zero cross signal and an edge signal from the first detect circuit, wherein the adjustment time is updated based on said edge signal. However, paragraphs 104-109 of the instant specification teach that it is the edge of the zero cross signal from the first detect circuit that is utilized to determine whether the controllably conductive device is closed within an error window, and if so, updating the close relay actuation adjustment time period. This inconsistency between the claims and the specification makes the metes and bounds of the unclear and raises an issue of indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as follows: In lines 17 and 18, after “edge” insert --of the zero cross signal--.
In further re Claim 1, lines 14-15 and 18 describe a wait time period which determines when the controllably conductive device is activated by the control circuitry as being calculated by the formula: (half cycle time period - adjustment time), wherein the adjustment time is updated. However, paragraphs 41-43 of the instant specification describe the relay actuation adjustment time period being calculated as: (a half AC line cycle minus the sum of the relay-actuation delay time period and one and one-half of the average relay contact-bounce duration) or (a half AC cycle minus the sum of the relay-actuation delay time period and one and one-fourth of the average relay contact-bounce duration), wherein the controllably conductive device is activated at a time determined by detecting a zero crossing and then waiting the relay actuation adjustment period. Furthermore, as discussed above, the specification teaches that it is the relay actuation adjustment period that is updated and not the sum of the relay-actuation delay time period and one and one-half of the average relay contact-bounce duration or the sum of the relay-actuation delay time period and one and one-fourth of the average relay contact-bounce duration. Essentially, it is unclear which time or time period described by the specification correspond to the claimed “wait time period” and “adjustment time”. This inconsistency between the claims and the specification makes the metes and bounds of the unclear and raises an issue of indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 will be further interpreted as follows: Line 11 is deleted. Line 14 will now read --detect a zero crossing and allow a wait time period to begin;--. In line 18, replace “adjustment time” with --wait time period--.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (2009/0027824) in view of Smith et al (2010/0321852).
In re Claim 1, Allen teaches a two-wire electric load control device, comprising: a controllably conductive device (110) reversibly transitionable between a conductive state and a non-conductive state; a first detect circuit (118/166, paragraphs 29 and 42) that includes a first controllable switch (166A, paragraph 43), the first detect circuit electrically coupled between an output side of the controllably conductive device and a ground connection (as seen in Figure 4A); control circuitry (116) operatively coupled to the controllably conductive device, the first detect circuit (as seen in Figure 1) to: receive a zero cross signal from first detect circuit (paragraph 36); detect a zero crossing (132) and allow a wait time period (146) to begin and at conclusion of the wait time period, cause the controllably conductive device to transition between states (paragraph 37); receive an edge (140) of the zero cross signal from first detect circuit (paragraph 36); and update the wait time period based on received edge of the zero cross signal (paragraph 38).
Allen further teaches the relay is used as a switch to control power to electrical device (paragraph 5), but does not specifically teach a user actuatable input device as claimed.
Smith et al (2010/0321852) teaches control circuitry 3 that is utilized to control the operation of a relay 5 (paragraph 24) as similarly taught by Allen, wherein activation of the relay is determined based on a user actuatable input device in the form of a push button (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a push button at taught by Smith with the load control device of Allen since it would allow for a user to determine when the load control device allows power to be delivered to a desired load.
In re Claims 2 and 3, Allen teaches a second detect circuit (114/162, paragraphs 30 and 42) that has a second controllable switch (U2) connected to the input side of the controllably conductive device at 163 (paragraph 42) and ground as seen in Figure 3A and provides power supply zero cross feedback to the control circuitry (paragraph 30 and as seen in Figure 3A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838 /THIENVU V TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights