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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/30/25 and 6/10/26 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al (US 2011/0089855).
With respect to claim 1,
Figure 1 of Roberts discloses an optoelectronic module, comprising:
- at least one light emitting diode (108) that emits light with a luminous intensity during operation,
- an integrated circuit (100) which sets an operating current of the light emitting diode and measures a value of the forward voltage of the light emitting diode during operation (Paragraph 14), wherein
- the integrated circuit determines a degradation of the light emitting diode by measuring the value of the forward voltage and increases or decreases the electrical operating current as a function of the measured value of the forward voltage, such that a change in the luminous intensity due to the degradation is at least partially compensated (Paragraph 15), and
- the integrated circuit or a measurement-control-unit for controlling the integrated circuit comprises a memory (130) in which calibration data is stored, wherein the calibration data comprises a value of the forward voltage of the light emitting diode as a reference value for determining the degradation (Paragraph 15).
With respect to claim 3,
Roberts further teaches wherein the measured value of the forward voltage is stored in the memory (Paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 6,
Figure 1 of Roberts discloses a method for operating an optoelectronic module comprising the steps of:
- setting a luminous intensity of at least one light emitting diode (108) by controlling an electrical operating current with an integrated circuit,
- determining a degradation of the light emitting diode by measuring a value of a forward voltage with the integrated circuit (Paragraph 14), wherein
- when setting the luminous intensity, a change in the luminous intensity due to degradation is compensated for by increasing or decreasing the electrical operating current as a function of the measured value of the forward voltage (Paragraph 15), and
- the optoelectronic module is calibrated prior to a first operation, and the calibration comprises a step of measuring and storing a value of the forward voltage of the light emitting diode under the same conditions as for determining the degradation at later times (Paragraph 15).
With respect to claim 7,
Roberts further teaches that the degradation of the light emitting diode is determined when the light emitting diode is switched on and/or at predetermined times (Paragraph 22).
With respect to claim 8,
Roberts further teaches wherein the forward voltage is measured at a predetermined value of the operating current (Paragraph 22).
With respect to claim 13,
Roberts further teaches wherein a temperature of the light emitting diode is determined immediately before or after measuring the value of the forward voltage to determine the degradation (Paragraph 25).
With respect to claim 16,
Roberts further teaches wherein the calibration comprises a further step in which a relationship between the electrical operating current and the luminous intensity of the light emitting diode is determined (see Figure 4).
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.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts.
With respect to claim 10,
Roberts teaches the invention as claimed and further teaches that the operating current value may be one or more values, but is silent to wherein the predetermined electrical operating current for measuring the forward voltage is between 50 microamperes and 5 milliamperes, inclusive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose such operating current value, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 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.
Conclusion
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejection, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jany Richardson whose telephone number is (571)270-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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 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.
/JANY RICHARDSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights