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 .
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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “comprising: LED light source group; Energy storage capacitor, with one terminal electrically connected to LED light source group, and the other grounded; NMOS transistor, with gate electrically connected to PWM to control signal, and source grounded; Freewheeling diode, with input electrically connected to the drain of NMOS transistor, and output electrically connected to the LED group input; Common mode choke, with one terminal electrically connected to the LED group output, and the other electrically connected to freewheeling diode input and the drain of NMOS transistor”. It should be recited as -- comprising: a LED light source group; an energy storage capacitor...and the other terminal grounded; a NMOS transistor, with a gate terminal electrically connected to PWM to control signal, and a source terminal grounded; a freewheeling diode, with an input electrically connected to a drain of the NMOS transistor, and an output electrically connected to the LED light source group input; a common mode choke...the other terminal electrically connected to a freewheeling diode input and the drain terminal of the NMOS transistor--.
Claims 2-10 are objected to based on the dependency from claim 1.
Claims 2-10 have the similar issues as discussed in claim 1. For example, should be recited as --a MCU--; Camera body should be recited as --a camera body--; and Camcorder body should be recited as --a camcorder body--.
In addition, claims 2-10 recite the LED circuit. They should be recited as --the high-power LED circuit--.
Claim 9 recites “of any one of claim 8” in line 2. It should be recited as --of claim 8--.
Claim 10 recites “of any one of claim 8” in line 2. It should be recited as --of claim 8--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 1 recites “with gate electrically connected to PWM to control signal”, which renders the claim indefinitely. The PWM is not a circuit but a signal. It’s unclear what signal
“to control signal” is controlling.
Claims 2-10 are ejected based on the dependency from claim 1.
Further clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savage, JR. (hereinafter Savage; US 2013/0334963).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Savage discloses a High-power LED circuit [e.g. figs. 3-4, abstract] with pulsed operation for flashlights, applied to flashlight, comprising: LED light source group [e.g. 330, para. 0029]; Energy storage capacitor [e.g. 314/316], with one terminal electrically connected to LED light source group, and the other grounded [see DGND]; NMOS transistor [e.g. Q5], with gate electrically connected to PWM [see at least U4, paras. 0034-0035] to control signal, and source grounded [see DGND]; Freewheeling diode [e.g. D3], with input electrically connected to the drain of NMOS transistor, and output electrically connected to the LED group input; Common mode choke [e.g. L2], with one terminal electrically connected to the LED group output, and the other electrically connected to freewheeling diode input and the drain of NMOS transistor.
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Savage discloses the LED circuit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the number of LED light sources in said LED light source group is 2 or more [see at least para. 0029].
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Savage discloses the LED circuit of claim 2, wherein 2 adjacent LED light sources have the same current amplitude [see at least para. 0029, e.g. same color].
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Savage discloses the LED circuit, according to claim 3, wherein 2 adjacent LED light sources have different current amplitude [see at least para. 0029; e.g. different color].
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 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage, JR. (US 2013/0334963).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Savage discloses, as mentioned in claim 4, the LED circuit is characterized in that said energy storage capacitor is specifically the energy storage capacitor except with adjustable energy storage capacity. However, one having ordinary skills of the art would have understood that the benefit of making adjustable is to provide flexibility. It would have been obvious having ordinary skill in the art to have adjustable energy storage capacity, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Steven, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Savage discloses the LED circuit as recited in claim 5, wherein energy storage capacitor is specifically an energy storage capacitor except with adjustable operating voltage. However, one having ordinary skills of the art would have understood that the benefit of making adjustable is to provide flexibility. It would have been obvious having ordinary skill in the art to have adjustable operating voltage, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Steven, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), the combination discussed above discloses, as claimed in claim 6, the LED circuit also comprising: MCU [see at least paras. 0028, 0030 Savage], electrically connected to the gate of NMOS transistor.
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), the combination discussed above discloses the LED circuit as claimed in claim 7, wherein MCU is specifically MCU that can adjust the duty cycle of the pulse wave MCU [see at least paras. 0028, 0030 Savage; PWM is based on the duty cycle].
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage, JR. (US 2013/0334963) in view of Chen (US 2006/0087253).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), the combination discussed above discloses the LED circuit of any of claim 8; except Camera body, electrically connected to wherein LED circuit. However, Chen discloses a camera body [e.g. 10 fig. 1], electrically connected to a LED circuit [e.g. 30 fig. 1, fig. 3/4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Savage in accordance with the teaching of Chen regarding a camera in order to provide the illumination for an image capture device [see abstract].
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), the combination discussed above in claim 9 discloses the LED circuit of any one of claim 8; except Camcorder body. However, it’s well-known to have the feature also be applied to a camcorder because camera and camcorder are both image capture devices. For example, US 2005/0046739 by Voss et al. discloses to use strobe light for an image capture device [para. 0013], e.g. camera, camcorder, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights