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 U.S.C. 112(b)
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 2, 11, 12, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites in the alternative ("and/or") that the first interface is a first transceiver interface or that the second interface is a second transceiver interface, and then requires, without qualification, that the transfer module transfer "second data content included in a second input signal received at the second interface" and that a "first output signal according to the first protocol is generated at said first interface." Under the alternative in which only the first interface is a transceiver interface, the second interface is configured only to send signals to the second peripheral interface device (claim 1), and there is no second input signal "received at the second interface" for the transfer module to transfer. The claim therefore embraces an alternative that is inconsistent with its own remaining limitations, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. See MPEP 2173.05(h) and 2173.03. For purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as requiring at least that the second interface be a second transceiver interface.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably voltage-to-current regulating circuitry" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following "preferably" is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitation following "preferably" is treated as optional. Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites "the at least one first and second control connector element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends from claim 9, and neither claim 9 nor claim 1 introduces any control connector element; that element is introduced only in claim 15, from which claim 16 does not depend. See MPEP 2173.05(e). For purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted as reciting "at least one first and second control connector element."
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.
Over U.S. Patent No. 11,792,905
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,792,905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim of the instant application is anticipated by the corresponding claim of the '905 patent identified in the table below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the '905 patent recites every limitation of instant claim 1, the light module, the first and second peripheral interface devices, the first interface using a first protocol, the second interface using a different second protocol, the transfer module, and the control means, in identical language, and additionally recites a driver with a driver housing, input and output connector elements, and driver circuitry configured to drive the first and/or second peripheral interface device. Instant claim 1 is therefore a broader genus of '905 claim 1 and is anticipated by it. A later genus claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier species claim. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d at 1053; Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Each dependent and independent claim of the instant application is likewise anticipated by the '905 claim identified below, which contains every limitation of the instant claim (including, through its own dependency from '905 claim 1, the driver limitations):
Instant claim
Anticipated by '905 claim
Instant claim
Anticipated by '905 claim
1
1
11
9
2
2
12
10
3
3
13
11
4
4
14
12
5
5
15
13
6
6
16
14
7
7
17
15
8
8
18
16
9
1
19
17
10
1
20
18
Regarding claims 9 and 10, '905 claim 1 recites the driver, driver housing with input connector elements for connection to a power supply and output connector elements for connection to the at least one light source, driver circuitry arranged in the driver housing (instant claim 9), and driver circuitry further configured to drive the first and/or second peripheral interface device with the driver housing further provided with output connector elements for connection to that device (instant claim 10).
Regarding claim 19, '905 claim 17 recites every limitation of instant claim 19 and additionally requires the driver housing, that the first and second interfaces be provided in or on the driver housing, and that the transfer module and the control means be provided in the driver housing.
Over U.S. Patent No. 12,273,981
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–4, 6–13, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,981. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each instant claim is anticipated by the corresponding '981 claim identified below.
Regarding claim 1, each of claims 1, 13, and 17 of the '981 patent recites every limitation of instant claim 1 in identical language and additionally specifies the identity of the first and second peripheral interface devices (communication devices in claim 1; a sensor and a communication device in claim 13; a communication device and a sensor in claim 17). Instant claim 1 is a genus of each and is anticipated by each.
Instant claim
Anticipated by '981 claim
1
1, 13, 17
2
1 (both interfaces transceiver interfaces; "and" is a species of "and/or")
3
2
4
3
5
13, 17
6
15 (via 13)
8
6
9
7
10
8
14
9
15
10 (via 8, 7)
17
11
18
12
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Wagoner et al. (US 2014/0028200 A1; hereinafter "Van Wagoner").
Regarding claim 1, Van Wagoner discloses a luminaire system (luminaire 4300 comprising solid state driver (SSD) 4310, solid state light (SSL) 4320, and light management unit communication interface (LMU CI) 4330; FIG. 43; ¶ [0124]) comprising:
a light module with at least one light source (SSL 4320 including LEDs 4321, which are powered by DC output power 4304; ¶¶ [0124], [0129]);
a first peripheral interface device (light sensing unit 4328 and its associated SSL microcontroller 4322, which measures ambient light and makes the measurements available via LIN bus 4306; ¶¶ [0129], [0131]) and a second peripheral interface device (wireless communication chip 4334 of LMU CI 4330, which may include a short-range radio, a long-range radio, and/or network interface controllers and connects to a network; ¶ [0133]);
a first interface configured to receive first signals from the first peripheral interface device using a first protocol (the LMU CI's "interface for local communication within the lighting device," which comprises a local interconnect network (LIN) bus, and through which the LMU CI receives the SSL's sensed temperature, sensed light, and sensed motion; ¶¶ [0138], [0139], [0142]–[0144]; microcontroller 4332 communicates with microcontroller 4322 of SSL 4320 via LIN bus 4306, ¶ [0134]);
a second interface configured to send second signals to the second peripheral interface device using a second protocol, wherein the first protocol and the second protocol are different (the microcontroller of the LMU CI is coupled with the wireless communication chip and provides the received operational parameters via the wireless communication chip, ¶ [0138]; the microcontroller translates the forwarded information "between a format associated with the local communication interface and a format for transmission via the external network," ¶ [0143], where the local format "includes one or more LIN bus packets" and the format for transmission via the wireless chip "includes one or more Internet Protocol (IP) packets," ¶ [0144]; the first protocol (LIN) and the second protocol (IP) are different);
a transfer module configured to transfer first data content included in a first input signal received at the first interface and/or first processed data based on said first data content, to the second interface ("[a]ny information received at the LMU CI 4330 or at the microcontroller 4332 via the LIN bus 4306 may be forwarded, via the wireless communication chip 4334 and/or the network, to an external machine," ¶¶ [0133]–[0134]; the LMU CI includes a wireless communication chip "for forwarding information between the local communication interface and an external network," ¶ [0143]; microcontroller 4332 is the CPU of LMU CI 4330 and has access to information stored within the driver of luminaire 4300, ¶ [0134]). As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, the transfer module is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover transfer module 350 with storage means 355 and equivalents. Van Wagoner's LMU CI microcontroller 4332, which receives LIN-bus information and forwards it to the wireless communication chip, performs the identical function (transferring data content received at the first interface to the second interface) in substantially the same way (a processor-based module receiving, holding, and passing data between two communication paths) with substantially the same result, and is therefore an equivalent of the corresponding structure. See MPEP 2182, 2183; and
a control means configured to control the signaling between the first interface, the transfer module and the second interface such that, when said first input signal is received, a second output signal according to the second protocol is generated at said second interface, said second output signal including said first data content and/or said first processed data (the LMU CI microcontroller "is programmed for receiving, via the interface for local communication within the lighting device, operational parameters of the lighting device" and "is programmed for providing, via the wireless communication chip, the received operational parameters to an external machine," ¶ [0138]; the LMU CI transmits "the sensed temperature, or the sensed presence of light from the local communication interface to a remote server," ¶ [0144]; the microcontroller translates LIN-bus-packet information into IP packets for transmission, ¶¶ [0143]–[0144]). Van Wagoner's programmed microcontroller retrieves data content received at the first interface according to the first protocol, processes (translates) it, and includes it in an output sent according to the second protocol, which is the algorithm disclosed at ¶ [0007] of the instant specification for control means 320 and is therefore at least an equivalent of the corresponding structure. See MPEP 2182.
Regarding claim 2, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1, wherein the first interface is a first transceiver interface configured to receive and send first signals from and to the first peripheral interface device using the first protocol (LMU CI microcontroller 4332 communicates bidirectionally with SSL microcontroller 4322 via LIN bus 4306, both receiving the SSL's sensor measurements and sending firmware or software updates to microcontroller 4322; ¶¶ [0131], [0132], [0134]); and the second interface is a second transceiver interface configured to receive and send second signals from and to the second peripheral interface device using the second protocol (information is both provided to, and received from, wireless communication chip 4334; ¶¶ [0133], [0138]), wherein the transfer module is configured to transfer second data content included in a second input signal received at the second interface to the first interface, and the control means is configured such that, when the second input signal is received, a first output signal according to the first protocol is generated at said first interface, said first output signal including said second data content (instructions sent to the LMU CI from a remote computer "may be forwarded from the wireless communication chip 4334 to the microcontroller 4332, and from the microcontroller 4332 to the microcontroller 4318 via the LIN bus 4306," ¶ [0133]; the LMU CI "may receive updates for the programming of the microcontroller 4322 of the SSL 4320," ¶ [0132]; the microcontroller is "programmed for receiving, via the wireless communication chip, an update . . . and . . . transmitting, via the interface for local communication within the lighting device, a command to implement the update," ¶ [0138]; the LMU CI receives from a remote server a command for reprogramming the SSL microcontroller and signals the SSL microcontroller to be reprogrammed, ¶ [0144]). Claim 2 is interpreted as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 5, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1, wherein the first and/or second peripheral interface device are a sensor or a communication device (light sensing unit 4328, a sensor, ¶ [0129]; wireless communication chip 4334, a communication device, ¶ [0133]).
Regarding claim 6, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1, wherein the first and/or second peripheral interface device are any one of the listed devices, namely a light sensor (light sensing unit 4328, ¶¶ [0129], [0131]) and a wireless communication device (wireless communication chip 4334, ¶ [0133]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3, 4, 7–14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wagoner.
Regarding claim 3, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the light module, driver, and LMU CI are components of a single luminaire 4300 (¶ [0124]), with the light sensing unit sensing light "through glass" of the luminaire (¶¶ [0129], [0131]), and microcontroller 4332 of the LMU CI residing "within a driver of the luminaire 4300" (¶ [0134]). Van Wagoner does not expressly state, in the description of FIG. 43, that luminaire 4300 comprises a luminaire housing containing the light module and the first and second interface, the transfer module, and the control means. However, Van Wagoner discloses, for its own LED street-light luminaire, a luminaire housing 3010 containing the LED array behind a transparent cover 3004, and teaches that the LED driver may be included in that luminaire housing (FIG. 30; ¶ [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the LEDs 4321 of luminaire 4300, together with the driver in which the LMU CI microcontroller resides (and therefore the LMU CI interfaces, transfer, and control structure), in a luminaire housing as taught by Van Wagoner's FIG. 30 embodiment, in order to protect the components and dissipate heat from the LED array as ¶ [0084] describes. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 4, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 3, wherein the first and/or second peripheral interface device are arranged on the luminaire housing or integrated in the luminaire housing (light sensing unit 4328 is integrated in SSL 4320 and senses light through the glass of the luminaire, ¶¶ [0129], [0131]; wireless communication chip 4334 is part of LMU CI 4330 within the luminaire, ¶¶ [0124], [0133]).
Regarding claim 7, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, wherein the first protocol is Local Interconnect Network (LIN) (¶¶ [0139], [0144]). Van Wagoner does not expressly name the interface between LMU CI microcontroller 4332 and wireless communication chip 4334. However, Van Wagoner discloses, for the processor of its RF-enabled LMU, that "[a] group of signals 2110 provide a universal-asynchronous-receiver-transmitter ('UART') interface to the wireless module" (FIG. 21; ¶ [0073]), and teaches that SSD 4310 may correspond to the RF-enabled LMU/LED-based-luminaire-driver of FIGS. 34 and 39, which is built from those same LMU components (¶¶ [0101], [0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the LMU CI microcontroller to its wireless communication chip through a UART interface, as Van Wagoner teaches for the processor-to-wireless-module link of its own LMU, because doing so is using a known interface for its disclosed purpose with predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–17 (2007); MPEP 2143, subsection I.A. The resulting first protocol (LIN) and second protocol (UART) are each among the protocols listed in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, wherein microcontroller 4332 has access to information stored within the driver (¶ [0134]), the microcontrollers of luminaire 4300 save fault conditions and maximum and minimum values for later provision to the LMU CI (¶¶ [0127]–[0128]), each LMU stores sensor-input flags, fixture operating values, and event status (FIG. 11; ¶ [0061]), and the LMU microprocessor includes flash memory (¶ [0073]). Van Wagoner does not expressly state that the LMU CI microcontroller stores the LIN-bus data content before forwarding it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the LMU CI microcontroller with memory storing the received data content, or the translated data, pending its transmission via the wireless communication chip, because translating LIN-bus packets into IP packets (¶ [0144]) requires holding the received content while the output packet is assembled, and Van Wagoner's LMUs already store received sensor and operating data as a matter of course (¶ [0061]). Van Wagoner's memory is at least an equivalent of storage means 355. See MPEP 2182.
Regarding claim 9, Van Wagoner discloses the luminaire system of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, further comprising a driver (SSD 4310, ¶¶ [0124]–[0125]) with input connections for a power supply (EMI filter 4312 receives alternating current (AC) input power 4302 from outside luminaire 4300, ¶ [0125]) and output connections to the at least one light source (output switching regulator 4316 provides DC output power 4304 to solid state light 4320, ¶¶ [0125], [0129]), and driver circuitry adapted to perform a driving functionality of the at least one light source (EMI filter 4312, power factor correction unit 4314, output switching regulator 4316, ¶ [0125]). Van Wagoner further teaches that its LED driver "is housed within a long, rectangular enclosure" (¶ [0085]), that input power and signal lines run to the luminaire (¶ [0084]), and that wires including a switched hot wire and a switched neutral wire interconnect driver components (¶ [0107]). Van Wagoner does not expressly describe SSD 4310 as having a driver housing with input and output connector elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the driver circuitry of SSD 4310 in a driver housing as Van Wagoner teaches for its LED drivers (¶ [0085]), and to provide that housing with input connector elements for AC input power 4302 and output connector elements for DC output power 4304, because a housed driver must receive its input power and deliver its output power across the housing, and connection wires, plugs, or terminals are the conventional means of doing so.
Regarding claim 10, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, wherein the driver circuitry is further configured to perform a driving functionality of the first and/or second peripheral interface device ("[t]he SSD 4310 provides power to the LMU CI 4330 and to the SSL 4320," ¶ [0136]; SSL 4320, which includes light sensing unit 4328 and microcontroller 4322, is powered by DC output power 4304, ¶ [0129]; the LMU/driver "may derive power from the driver itself as a low voltage input (e.g., 12 volts)," ¶ [0107]), and wherein the driver housing is further provided with output connector elements for connection to the first and/or second peripheral interface device ("[t]he LIN bus 4306 may have three wires: +12 volts, ground (GND), and LIN COMM," and "may be replaced with any other wire(s) for local communication and low voltage power within the luminaire 4300," ¶ [0137]). The +12 V and GND wires of LIN bus 4306 delivering low-voltage power from SSD 4310 to LMU CI 4330 and SSL 4320 are output connector elements for connection to the peripheral interface devices; the instant specification itself identifies a "connection wire" as a connector element (¶¶ [0018], [0048]; claim 16). Providing those wires at the driver housing of SSD 4310, as modified for claim 9, follows for the same reason given for claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, wherein the driver circuitry comprises converter circuitry (output switching regulator 4316, which may be a buck, flyback, or resonant output switching regulator, ¶ [0125]; the SSD includes an AC-to-DC converter, ¶ [0141]), including voltage-to-current regulating circuitry (an LED driver that "rectifies and stabilizes input AC power to produce a constant-current DC output," ¶ [0087]; constant-output-current LED lamp driver, FIGS. 31–33, ¶ [0086]; SSD 4310 may correspond to that driver, ¶ [0125]). Claim 11 is interpreted as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 12, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 11, wherein output switching regulator 4316 may be a flyback switching regulator that provides DC output power 4304 (¶ [0125]). A flyback converter delivers energy from the secondary winding of its transformer, and a DC output is obtained from that winding only through rectifier circuitry on the secondary side, that is, downstream of the converter's switching stage. To the extent Van Wagoner is not considered to disclose this rectifier expressly, providing rectifier circuitry downstream of the converter circuitry would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the conventional means of obtaining the DC output power 4304 that Van Wagoner requires from a transformer-based flyback regulator.
Regarding claim 13, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, wherein the first and the second interface are provided in or on the driver housing ("the microcontroller 4332 of the LMU CI 4330 resides within a driver of the luminaire 4300," ¶ [0134]; "a single unit may include both the LED driver 3410 and the controller 3902," ¶ [0107]; "the SSD may be included within the LMU to form a combined unit," ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, wherein the transfer module and the control means are provided in the driver housing (microcontroller 4332 of the LMU CI resides within a driver of luminaire 4300, ¶ [0134]; see also ¶¶ [0090], [0107]).
Regarding claim 19, Van Wagoner discloses a luminaire system comprising: a luminaire housing containing a light module with at least one light source, as set forth with respect to claims 1 and 3 above; driver circuitry adapted to perform a driving functionality of the at least one light source (SSD 4310, ¶ [0125]); a first peripheral interface device and a second peripheral interface device; a first interface configured to receive first signals from the first peripheral interface device using a first protocol; a second interface configured to send second signals to the second peripheral interface device using a second protocol, wherein the first protocol and the second protocol are different; a transfer module; and a control means, each as set forth with respect to claim 1 above; said first interface and said second interface being arranged on the luminaire housing or integrated in the luminaire housing, for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 3 above (the LMU CI interfaces are located within luminaire 4300 and, as modified, within its luminaire housing); and wherein the driver circuitry is further configured to perform a driving functionality of the first and/or second peripheral interface device ("[t]he SSD 4310 provides power to the LMU CI 4330 and to the SSL 4320," ¶ [0136]; +12 V and ground wires of LIN bus 4306, ¶ [0137]; DC output power 4304 powers SSL 4320 including light sensing unit 4328, ¶ [0129]). The rationale set forth with respect to claim 3 applies equally here.
Regarding claim 20, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 19, wherein the first and/or second peripheral interface device are arranged on the luminaire housing or integrated in the luminaire housing, and are a sensor or a communication device, for the reasons set forth with respect to claims 4 and 5 above.
Claims 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wagoner in view of Vollmer et al. (US 2017/0188438 A1; hereinafter "Vollmer").
Regarding claim 15, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, including LIN bus 4306 wiring into the LMU CI residing within the driver (¶¶ [0134], [0137]) and wired connections to the driver (¶ [0107]). Van Wagoner does not expressly disclose that the driver housing is provided with at least one first and second control connector element connected to the first and the second interface, respectively.
Vollmer teaches a control card 310 for an illumination device that converts an input signal of one protocol into an output control signal of a different protocol (¶¶ [0055]–[0058]), the control card having a wired protocol interface 314 (¶ [0055]) and "a universal connector for physically connecting to one or more types of wireless communication radios," the universal connector providing pinouts (power, ground, communication bus) that match the pinouts of the radios (¶ [0059]), and teaches interfacing the illumination device with the control card by "pogo pins, USB interface, or other similar" connectors (¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driver housing of Van Wagoner, as modified, with a first control connector element connected to the LIN-side interface and a second control connector element connected to the radio-side interface, as taught by Vollmer, so that the sensor-side and radio-side devices can be connected to, and exchanged at, the driver without redesigning it, which is the purpose Vollmer gives for its universal radio connector (¶ [0059]). This is the application of a known connection technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143, subsection I.D.
Regarding claim 16, Van Wagoner in view of Vollmer, as applied to claim 15 above, discloses the luminaire system wherein the input connector elements and/or the output connector elements and/or the at least one first and second control connector element are any one of a connection wire, a connector plug, a connector pin, a connector socket, a terminal block, or any combination thereof (Van Wagoner: switched hot and neutral wires, ¶ [0107]; +12 V, GND, and LIN COMM wires of LIN bus 4306, ¶ [0137]; Vollmer: pogo pins and USB interface, ¶ [0036]). Claim 16 is interpreted as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 17, Van Wagoner, as modified above, discloses the luminaire system of claim 9, wherein the LMU CI microcontroller resides within the driver (¶ [0134]). Van Wagoner does not expressly disclose that the driver housing is provided with a receiving means configured for receiving at least one pluggable module, such that the at least one pluggable module can be received from outside of the driver housing, wherein the at least one pluggable module comprises at least a portion of the first and/or second interface and/or of the transfer module and/or of the control means.
Vollmer teaches an illumination device comprising "a port configured to removably receive the control card" (¶ [0005]), where the control card is a module "configured to be removably interconnected to various types of lighting devices" (¶ [0027]) and includes processor 311, memory 317, wired protocol interface 314, and transmitter 315/receiver 316, which together receive an input signal in one protocol and convert it to an output signal in another (¶¶ [0055]–[0058]); Vollmer further teaches that "the control card may be inserted into a port of the lighting device so that it can be replaced [if] protocol changes require updates to the rule set" (¶ [0074]). Vollmer's control card is a pluggable module comprising at least a portion of the claimed interfaces, transfer module, and control means, and Vollmer's port performs the identical function of the claimed receiving means (receiving the pluggable module from outside) in substantially the same way as the recess that is the corresponding structure, and is therefore an equivalent. See MPEP 2182.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the driver housing of Van Wagoner, as modified, with a port receiving, from outside the housing, a pluggable module carrying the interface, transfer, and control circuitry of the LMU CI, as taught by Vollmer, so that the protocol-handling circuitry can be replaced or updated when the connected devices or protocols change without replacing the driver, as Vollmer teaches (¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Van Wagoner in view of Vollmer, as applied to claim 17 above, discloses the luminaire system wherein the driver housing is provided with at least one recess for receiving the at least one pluggable module (Vollmer's port configured to removably receive the control card, ¶¶ [0005], [0074]; Vollmer claim 4).
Conclusion
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 2845
9/29/2026
