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 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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 as amended recite "an activation cycle detected by the control unit" and that "the activation cycle comprises one or more instances of a same activation signal received by the control unit." The Examiner does not find support in the specification as originally filed for an activation cycle as a distinct construct from the activation signal, or for the recited relationship between the two. Applicant is invited to identify the passage relied upon. Claims 2–10, 12–16 and 18–20 are rejected as depending from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–8 and 10–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0065003 A1 (hereinafter "Tetreault") in view of US 4,322,632 (hereinafter "Hart").
Regarding claim 1, Tetreault discloses a lighting device comprising:
a light engine having three or more operating modes. Tetreault discloses a ceiling fan 100 including a light source 170, which may comprise light emitting diode devices (¶ [0030]). Tetreault discloses that the light source is configurable in at least four modes: a first mode in which the light source is decoupled from the power source; a second mode in which the light source is coupled to the power source and emits light; a third mode in which the light source emits light brighter than in the second mode; and a fourth mode in which the light source emits light brighter than in the third mode (¶¶ [0034], [0035]).
an accessory comprising at least one additional operable component having at least two operating modes. Tetreault discloses a fan motor 140 operatively coupled to fan blades 130 (¶¶ [0026], [0027]), configurable in at least four modes: a first mode decoupled from the power source, a second mode rotating the blades at a first speed, a third mode at a faster second speed, and a fourth mode at a still faster third speed (¶¶ [0032], [0033]).
a control unit configured to vary the operating modes of the lighting device. Tetreault discloses a fan controller 310 comprising an in-wall controller 400 and a canopy controller 500 (¶ [0036]). The canopy controller includes a fan motor controller 530 that controls the speed and direction of the fan motor (¶ [0053]) and a light source controller 540 that activates, deactivates and configures the light source in one of a plurality of modes (¶ [0055]). The in-wall controller includes one or more control devices 420 having processors 424 and memory devices 426 (¶¶ [0043]–[0045]) and one or more switching devices 450 for controlling delivery of AC power to the electrical loads of the ceiling fan (¶ [0050]).
cycling through the operating modes in response to repeated actuation of a single input. Tetreault further discloses that each of the light source and the fan motor is advanced through its modes in sequence by repeated manipulation of a single input device. As to the fan motor, the user manipulates the first input device 180 to move from the first mode to the second, then "again" to the third, "yet again" to the fourth, and "again" back to the first mode (¶¶ [0032], [0033]). As to the light source, the user manipulates the second input device 182 to move from the first mode to the second, then to the third, then to the fourth, and "again" back to the first mode (¶¶ [0034], [0035]). Tetreault describes this input as a pull-chain switch that the user pulls to "toggle between a plurality of modes" (¶¶ [0003], [0018], [0031]).
Tetreault does not explicitly disclose a control unit that detects an activation cycle comprising one or more instances of a same activation signal and, upon that detection, cycles the lighting device through the operating modes. In Tetreault the sequence is advanced by mechanical manipulation of the pull-chain switch itself.
In analogous art, for control of a combined ceiling fan and light fixture over existing wiring, Hart discloses a remote load selector circuit 10 that supplies power to a plurality of loads under the control of a single manually operable wall switch 16. Hart discloses:
a single-pole, single-throw wall switch 16 connected in series with the hot conductor, controlling power to the ceiling fixture;
transition detecting means — diode D3, resistor R2, capacitor C3 and Schmitt trigger U1 — that produces a power transition signal in response to the application or removal of power when the wall switch is opened or closed;
digital storage means, flip-flops U2 and U3, whose output states are advanced by each transition signal and which drive power switches Q3 and Q4;
a sequence of states advanced by repeated toggling of that same switch: a first state in which only load 20 is powered, a second state in which both loads 20 and 21 are powered, and a third state in which only load 21 is powered, with a third toggle returning the circuit to the first state. Hart states that the three-step sequence can be repeated by continuous toggling of wall switch 16;
an anticipated use in which load 20 is a light fixture attached to a ceiling fan and load 21 is the fan motor.
Hart's toggling of the wall switch is thus one or more instances of a same activation signal — the power transition produced each time that one switch is operated — and Hart's transition detector and flip-flop logic detect that sequence and advance the loads through their states accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the mode sequences of Tetreault's light source and fan motor with a control unit that detects repeated operation of the wall switch, as taught by Hart, rather than requiring the user to manipulate the pull-chain switch physically located on the fan. The motivation is supplied by Tetreault itself: Tetreault identifies the pull-chain switch as the conventional means of toggling between modes (¶¶ [0003], [0018], [0019]), and identifies as a problem that when a mode has been set by that pull-chain switch, the fan controller is precluded from switching the load to another mode, so that the controller must fall back on notifying the user to go pull the chain (¶¶ [0021]–[0024], [0056], [0063]–[0067]). Hart addresses exactly that limitation, teaching selection among multiple load states from the existing wall switch location using existing two-conductor wiring, without additional wiring or control switches. Applying Hart's transition-detecting sequencing logic to Tetreault's controller yields the predictable result of allowing the modes Tetreault already discloses to be advanced from the wall rather than at the fixture.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites a light engine having at least two operating modes and an additional operable component having three or more operating modes. Tetreault in view of Hart renders claim 11 obvious for the reasons given for claim 1. Tetreault's light source has at least two modes (¶ [0034]) and its fan motor has four (¶¶ [0032], [0033]).
Regarding Claim 17, it recites a light engine having two or more operating modes and an additional operable component having at least two operating modes. Tetreault in view of Hart renders claim 17 obvious for the reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claims 1 and 17 respectively for the reasons discussed above, wherein the at least one additional operable component comprises a ceiling fan. Tetreault's device is a ceiling fan 100 having fan blades 130 driven by a fan motor 140 (¶¶ [0026], [0027]). Hart likewise identifies its second load 21 as a ceiling fan motor.
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 20, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claims 1, 11 and 17 respectively for the reasons discussed above, wherein the activation signal comprises a change in voltage that is at least a line voltage threshold voltage change. Hart's transition detector responds to the application or removal of line power at the wall switch: when the switch is opened the voltage at node 34 falls to zero, and the Schmitt trigger U1—a thresholding device—produces a positive-going transition that clocks the storage devices.
Regarding claims 4, 16 and 20, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claims 3, 15 and 17 respectively for the reasons discussed above, wherein the activation signal is generated by a toggle switch configured to control provision of electrical power to the lighting device. Hart's wall switch 16 is a single-pole, single-throw switch connected in series with the active power conductor, and the transition signals are generated by toggling it.
Regarding claim 5, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 4 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the toggle switch is a wall-mounted or junction box mounted switch. Hart's switch 16 is located at the wall switch location, and Hart's alternative wiring arrangement brings the incoming power line to the ceiling junction box. ⟦Pin col./line.⟧ Tetreault likewise positions its in-wall controller 400, which includes interface elements including toggle switches, in a wall defining the space in which the ceiling fan is located (¶¶ [0036], [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 4 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the toggle switch is configured to be operable via Wi-Fi. Tetreault's in-wall controller 400 includes interface elements 412 comprising toggle switches through which a user selects an operating mode for the fan motor or light source (¶ [0041]), and a communication interface 470 whose second circuit 474 communicates control commands via antenna 484 using IEEE 802.11 communication technology to a router, gateway or other device (¶¶ [0046], [0047]). Tetreault further discloses that the in-wall controller communicates with remote devices 600 including user devices over an IEEE 802.11 wireless link (¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Tetreault discloses that the in-wall controller includes memory devices 426 which may include non-volatile memory such as ROM, PROM, EEPROM or flash, and which store data that can be obtained, received, accessed, written, manipulated, created and stored (¶¶ [0044], [0045]). Hart discloses means coupled to the digital storage devices for maintaining the output states that occur in response to a power transition signal, so that the selected state persists as the switch is toggled.
Neither reference expressly conditions the storing on the load having been operated in the selected mode for at least a memory update time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the selected operating mode only after the device has remained in that mode for a predetermined interval, in order to distinguish a mode the user has settled on from modes passed through transiently while cycling, and thereby to restore the intended setting on the next power-up.
Regarding claim 8, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the activation signal causes the control unit to cycle the operating mode to a next operating mode in a sequence of operating modes. Tetreault's light source and fan motor each advance through an ordered sequence of four modes and then return to the first (¶¶ [0032]–[0035]), and Hart's storage logic advances its loads to the next state in a three-state sequence on each transition signal, repeating continuously.
Regarding claim 10, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. Claim 10 requires at least one of two alternatives, and the second is met. As to the second alternative, the storing of a selected operating mode to memory after operation for at least ten seconds is addressed by the reasoning given for claim 7; selecting ten seconds as the interval is a routine choice of a threshold value.
As to the first alternative, Hart discloses that the state advance depends on the switch being reclosed before the voltage on node 36 decays sufficiently to deactivate the logic circuitry, and that holding the switch open for a longer period instead resets the circuit to its first state — that is, a time-bounded window within which a successive activation is treated as part of the sequence. ⟦Pin col./line.⟧ Selecting three seconds as that window is a routine choice of a threshold value for distinguishing an intended mode-change command from ordinary on/off operation.
Regarding claim 12, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 11 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the additional operable component comprises a fan and its three or more operating modes comprise high, medium and low speed. Tetreault discloses precisely this: a second mode at a first speed, a third mode at a second speed described as medium and faster than the first, and a fourth mode at a third speed described as fast and faster than the second (¶ [0033]); see also ¶¶ [0003], [0018].
Regarding claim 13, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 11 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the at least two operating modes of the light engine include a first mode corresponding to the light engine being on and a second corresponding to it being off. Tetreault discloses a first mode in which the light source 170 is decoupled from the power source and a second mode in which it is coupled to the power source and emits light to illuminate the space (¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 11 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the additional operable component comprises a first and a second operable component and the three or more operating modes comprise: both on; the first on and the second off; and the first off and the second on. Hart discloses exactly these three states — a first state in which only load 20 is powered, a second state in which both loads 20 and 21 are powered, and a third state in which only load 21 is powered — cycled in sequence by successive toggling of the wall switch. Hart identifies load 20 as a light fixture attached to a ceiling fan and load 21 as the fan motor.
Regarding claim 19 (structure only)
⟦Claim 19's UV component is addressed in Ground 3.⟧
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetreault in view of Hart and further in view of US 2019/0098725 A1 (hereinafter "Sadwick").
Regarding Claim 9, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, including a light engine having at least four operating modes. Tetreault's light-source modes are distinguished by intensity rather than by correlated color temperature (¶¶ [0034], [0035]).
Sadwick discloses color temperature and color tunable lighting operation (¶ [0026]) and automatic adjustment of color temperature (¶ [0019]). ⟦Verify both citations against the document — see Internal Note A-5.⟧
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the plural operating modes of Tetreault's light source as modes of differing correlated color temperature as taught by Sadwick, because CCT-tunable operation was a known way to provide user-selectable lighting appearances, and because Tetreault's light source controller 540 already configures the light source in one of a plurality of modes (¶ [0055]) and would require no change in principle of operation to select among CCT settings rather than intensity settings.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetreault in view of Hart and further in view of US 2017/0215261 A1 (hereinafter "Potucek").
Regarding Claim 19, Tetreault, as modified by Hart, discloses the lighting device of claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. Neither reference discloses an ultraviolet light component or a timed shutoff for one.
Potucek discloses a disinfectant system employing UV or ozone, and discloses timed and scheduled operational control through stored operational programs, schedules and modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a UV light among the additional operable components of Tetreault's fixture and to turn it off automatically after a set period has elapsed, in order to limit unnecessary UV exposure and to conserve power, using the timed operational control Potucek teaches for connected devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments directed to Tung are persuasive in part and the rejection over Tung is withdrawn. The claims are rejected above on a new basis necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
1. Tung
Applicant argues that Tung's control logic generates different signals in response to actuation of a selected one of four switches rather than in response to repeated activation of one switch; that Tung states operating modes are selected by pressing a single switch and that toggling is not required; and that Tung's discussion of repeated toggling teaches away.
Tung's mode select switches 32, 34, 36 and 38 are four separate manually operable switches, and Tung's disclosure of clipping one, two, three or four positive half cycles corresponds to actuation of a selected one of those four switches rather than to repeated operation of a single switch. Further, the passage of Tung previously relied upon for repeated toggling appears in Tung's Description of the Prior Art and is Tung's characterization of a different reference, U.S. Patent No. 4,322,632, rather than a disclosure of Tung's own device. The rejection over Tung is withdrawn and Tung is no longer relied upon.
The reference Tung was there describing, U.S. Patent No. 4,322,632, is applied above in its own right. Tung's preference for its four-switch arrangement over the toggling approach does not remove that approach from the prior art; a reference that describes an alternative as less convenient still teaches it. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2145(X)(D). Tung's stated objections—that the switch sequence may be difficult to remember and that it does not accommodate fan direction, speed and intensity control--go to convenience and to the range of functions supported, not to whether the arrangement works.
2. Scope of the amended claims
Applicant argues that neither reference teaches "an activation cycle detected by the control unit, wherein the activation cycle comprises one or more instances of a same activation signal received by the control unit, and wherein, upon detection of the activation cycle, the control unit cycles the lighting device through one or more operating modes."
The Examiner notes that the amendment does not narrow the claims in the respect Applicant's argument assumes. Claim 1 as originally presented required that "receipt of the activation signal cycles the lighting device through each of the operating modes." As amended, claim 1 requires only that the control unit cycle the lighting device through "the one or more operating modes," upon detection of an activation cycle that may comprise as few as one instance of an activation signal. The requirement that the device be cycled through each of its operating modes, and any requirement of repetition, have been removed. The amended claim is therefore broader in this respect than the claim previously of record, and Applicant's argument that the references fail to teach cycling through modes by repeated activation is not commensurate with what the amended claims require.
Hart nonetheless discloses the arrangement Applicant describes. Toggling Hart's wall switch produces the same power transition signal each time; Hart's transition detector and storage logic detect that sequence; and the loads are advanced through an ordered sequence of states which "can be repeated by continuous toggling of wall switch 16."
3. Dependent claims
Applicant states that claims 2–10, 12–16 and 18–20 are patentable for the reasons given for the independent claims and does not argue their separate patentability. Those claims are addressed in Grounds 1 through 3 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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 H. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights