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):
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.
Claims 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4: The claim recites “so that the one or more lighting fixtures are operated with the target lighting parameters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim earlier recites only “lighting parameters” (“the control module is used to configure lighting parameters of the one or more lighting fixtures based on the set of target instructions”); no “target lighting parameters” are previously introduced. It is unclear whether “the target lighting parameters” refers to the configured “lighting parameters,” to parameters contained within the “set of target instructions,” or to some other parameters. For purposes of examination, “the target lighting parameters” is interpreted as the lighting parameters configured based on the set of target instructions.
Regarding claim 10: The claim recites “the set of target instructions is used for configuring the lighting fixtures to work with the target lighting parameters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; neither claim 10 nor claim 9 (from which it depends) nor claim 1 previously recites “target lighting parameters.” For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as lighting parameters specified by the set of target instructions.
Regarding claim 11: The claim recites “the set of target instructions is used for configuring the lighting fixtures to work with the target lighting parameters” and is indefinite for the same reason set forth for claim 10 above. The same interpretation is applied for purposes of examination.
(Optional additional paragraph — examiner’s discretion): Regarding claims 10 and 11, the recitations of a “second communication module” (claim 10) and a “third communication module” (claim 11) do not render the claims indefinite per se; however, the “first communication module” is recited only in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claims 10 and 11 (10→9→1; 11→9→1). Applicant may wish to confirm the intended dependencies. [Consider raising as a claim objection or an examiner’s note rather than a 112(b), consistent with MPEP 2173.05(e) — ordinal designations alone do not create indefiniteness where scope is otherwise ascertainable.]
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
References applied (verify all dates and inventor names before mailing):
Ref
Number
Short name
Role
A
US 9,769,558 B2 to Chandramohan et al. (issued Sep. 19, 2017; filed Sep. 24, 2016; continuation of 15/273,685 filed Sep. 22, 2016; claims benefit of provisionals incl. 62/235,205 filed Sep. 30, 2015)
Chandramohan (’558)
Primary — case with insert having accommodating cavities, per-cavity detectors, case-side control/communication circuitry
B
US 10,306,727 B2 to Park et al. (LG Electronics; issued May 28, 2019; filed May 24, 2017; KR priority 10-2016-0073166 filed Jun. 13, 2016)
Park (’727)
Mobile terminal wirelessly configuring lighting apparatus parameters
C
US 11,291,090 B2 (family: US 10,342,102)
Bowser et al. (’090)
Fixture configuration module receiving lighting parameter ranges wirelessly while decoupled
D
US 6,255,946 B1 to Kim (issued Jul. 3, 2001; filed Feb. 28, 2000; KR priority Mar. 22, 1999)
Kim (’946)
First and second IR emitters, presence/direction detection
E
US 9,229,580 B2 to Chow et al. (Technokey; issued Jan. 5, 2016; PCT filed Jun. 18, 2013; provisional 61/679,074 filed Aug. 3, 2012) (family: US 9,372,071)
Chow (’580)
Multiple emitters at different positions/directions bounding a detection area, sequential activation control
Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Chandramohan (’558) in view of Park (’727)
Regarding claim 1, Chandramohan discloses a smart device (case 100/204 for wireless earbuds) comprising:
a casing body having an accommodating space (housing 105, “also called a body,” defining an interior space enclosed by lid 120 — col. 17, ll. 56-60; col. 18, ll. 11-18 (lid 120 operable between closed position fully enclosing the earbuds within the housing and an open position); see also col. 18, ll. 30-34 (earbuds positioned “within an interior space or cavity of the case defined by a housing or an insert within the housing”)); and
an accommodating part arranged in the accommodating space and having one or more accommodating cavities (an insert positioned within the housing, the insert having first and second cavities sized and shaped to accommodate first and second earbuds, respectively — col. 8, ll. 6-14; see also col. 17, ll. 56-64 (cavities 110a, 110b, each with stem section 116a/116b and bud section 117a/117b); col. 27, ll. 13-16 (first and second shells 650, 655 defining receiving cavities); FIGS. 1, 3, 6C) for accommodating one or more devices respectively.
Chandramohan does not disclose that the accommodated devices are lighting fixtures.
Park (’727) discloses lighting apparatuses (fixtures) that are wirelessly controllable and configurable from a mobile terminal: a lighting apparatus 600 comprising a plurality of lightings such as a first lighting 600-1 (stand type) and a second lighting 600-2 (ceiling type), each including a light source module 610, an electrochromic module 620, first and second driving modules 630, 640, and a controller 650 (col. 4, ll. 30-40 (approx.); FIG. 1); a communication module 670 that “may receive a lighting control signal from an external terminal,” the controller generating light and absorbing a specified wavelength range in accordance with the requested lighting mode (col. 10, ll. 44-52 (approx.); FIG. 5); and a mobile terminal 100 connected with the plurality of lightings through communication to control them (col. 11, ll. 38-43 (approx.); FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the accommodating case architecture of Chandramohan to portable lighting fixtures as taught by ’727, because Chandramohan’s case architecture (insert with cavities shaped to the accommodated device, case-side battery and control circuitry) is a known technique for storing, protecting, and charging small rechargeable electronic devices, and applying it to another known class of small rechargeable electronic devices (portable lighting fixtures) is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR; MPEP 2143(I)(C)–(D)), yielding no more than predictable results (a case that stores and services lighting fixtures rather than earbuds). Notably, Chandramohan expressly contemplates its case architecture for devices other than earbuds (“case 1300 can be used for myriad other purposes such as, for example, but not limited to, a container for storing medicine, a container for storing cigars or a recharging container for a miniature portable media player” — col. 31, ll. 32-36), evidencing that one of ordinary skill would have recognized the architecture’s applicability beyond listening devices.
Regarding claim 2, Chandramohan discloses the smart device further comprising a control module including a control board (case processor 210 together with earbud detector 215, radio 217, lid sensor 220, case charging circuitry 225, and earbud charging circuitry 230 — col. 19, ll. 4-13; the charging system including “a circuit board 335 or other electrical routing structure . . . one or more electronic components, such as case processor 210” — col. 24, ll. 7-13) used for controlling the one or more accommodated devices (processor 210 configured to communicate with the earbuds to turn their wireless radios ON and OFF — col. 21, ll. 13-30; earbud charging circuitry 230 controlling the charging of the batteries within the accommodated devices, including controlling voltage and current supplied — col. 22, ll. 1-9). Park (’727) teaches control circuitry controlling lighting apparatuses specifically: controller 650 controlling first driving module 630 (driving light source module 610) and second driving module 640 (driving electrochromic module 620) (col. 7, ll. 27-34 (approx.); FIG. 1), including determining a light color and light luminance corresponding to the input lighting mode and generating light accordingly (col. 9, ll. 6-11 (approx.)). The combination renders obvious a control board used for controlling the one or more lighting fixtures for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’558 in view of ’727, further in view of Bowser (’090).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chandramohan and ’727 teaches the smart device of claim 2. Chandramohan further discloses a first communication module in the case in communication connection with the accommodated devices when arranged in the accommodating part, with the control board controlling the accommodated devices through that module: earbud interface 245 “enables circuitry within case 204 to communicate with and/or charge earbuds 202a, 202b” (col. 19, ll. 7-12); “case processor 210 can communicate with pair of earbuds 202a, 202b by sending and receiving data through earbud interface 245” (col. 20, ll. 44-48); the case may alternatively include wireless radio 217 enabling data communication with the earbuds (col. 21, ll. 3-12); and when the devices are within the case, “the case can generate and send an instruction to the pair of earbuds that causes the earbuds to turn their wireless radio on . . . the instruction can be sent over one or more electrical contacts positioned within the receiving cavity” (col. 54, ll. 15-24; FIG. 50 step 5010-5015).
Regarding claim 4 (as interpreted per the 112(b) rejection above), Chandramohan discloses the case’s control module in communication connection with an external terminal: wireless radio 217 “enables the case to transmit and receive data communications with earbuds 202a, 202b and a host device (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer or the like)” (col. 21, ll. 3-8), and the case can receive data/firmware from an external device through its interfaces for delivery to the case processor and the accommodated devices (col. 21, l. 60 – col. 22, l. 2 (approx.) — power source as computing device providing bidirectional communication and firmware updates through the same contacts used for charging). Chandramohan does not disclose that the received instructions configure lighting parameters. ’727 discloses a mobile terminal that transmits a set of target instructions (lighting mode/setup selections entered at a setup window) to configure lighting parameters of a lighting apparatus so the apparatus operates with those parameters: the terminal displays a setup window 730 with a lighting mode selection button 734 including a reading mode, a sleeping mode, a natural mode, a power saving mode, a movie mode, a mood mode, and a user mode (col. 19, ll. 44-49 (approx.); FIGS. 23, 26); when a mode is set, the terminal transmits a lighting control signal corresponding to the set lighting mode to the lighting apparatus (col. 19, ll. 50-57 (approx.)); the transmitted lighting mode information may include at least any one of a light color, light luminance, a specific wavelength range of light desired to be absorbed, and a light absorption ratio of that range — i.e., lighting parameters (col. 20, ll. 13-18 (approx.); see also col. 22, ll. 8-13); and the apparatus controls its light source module and electrochromic module in accordance with the requested mode or included specific lighting information so as to operate with those parameters (col. 11, l. 52 – col. 12, l. 6 (approx.)). It would have been obvious to configure the combination’s control module to receive such instructions from a mobile terminal and configure the accommodated fixtures accordingly, since ’727 expressly teaches terminal-driven lighting parameter configuration and Chandramohan teaches case-resident bidirectional communication with both an external host device and the accommodated devices; the combination is the predictable application of terminal-based configuration through a docking case.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’558 in view of ’727, further in view of Kim (’946) (and, for claim 6, further in view of Chow (’580))
Regarding claim 5, Chandramohan discloses per-cavity occupancy detection: “case 204 can include separate earbud receiving cavities within the case . . . and earbud detector 215 can include first and second earbud detectors — one detector for each cavity,” each detector operatively coupled to detect when a device is inserted within its respective cavity (col. 19, l. 62 – col. 20, l. 5 (approx.)). Chandramohan further discloses that each detector “can be any type of mechanical or electrical sensor, such as, but not limited to, a magnetic sensor, an optical sensor, a switch, a hall effect sensor, a flux sensor, a capacitive sensor, a photodetector, a proximity detector, a momentary switch or any other type of sensor” (col. 19, ll. 36-42 (approx.)), and that the detector generates a detect signal processed by case circuitry (col. 20, ll. 6-14). Chandramohan does not disclose, for each cavity, a pair of first and second transmitters transmitting detection signals in first and second different directions.
‘946 discloses an object-presence detection arrangement comprising first and second infrared emitters generating first and second beams along different paths toward a monitored region to determine presence of an object: a first pulse generator 32 drives first infrared emitter 34 to output a first infrared signal to reflector 20, and a second pulse generator 36 drives second infrared emitter 38 to output a second infrared signal to the reflector (col. 4, ll. 1-12 (approx.)); the emitters’ light emitting diodes D1 and D2 are disposed at the same height, displaced from one another by a certain distance, with the first emitter on the “entrance side” and the second on the “exit side” of the monitored passage, so the two beams traverse the region along different paths (col. 4, ll. 35-49 (approx.); FIG. 3); the unit determines the presence and moving direction of a body passing through the gate from the two reflected pulse trains (col. 3, ll. 43-49 (approx.); col. 7, ll. 6-19 (approx.)); and the two emitters are mounted in a single housing (col. 2, ll. 20-23 (approx.); claims 1, 12), a packaging directly compatible with a per-cavity detector module.
It would have been obvious to implement Chandramohan’s per-cavity optical detector as the two-emitter, two-direction arrangement of ’946, because Chandramohan already names optical sensors, photodetectors, and proximity detectors as suitable per-cavity detector types (col. 19, ll. 36-42) — making the substitution one of a known optical detection arrangement for a generically disclosed optical detector (simple substitution, MPEP 2143(I)(B)) — and because a single-axis presence sensor is susceptible to false detection states (e.g., a partially seated or misaligned device occluding a single beam path), which plural beams along different directions mitigate.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches two detection directions but does not expressly teach an angle of 90° between them. ’580 discloses emitters disposed at different positions bounding a rectangular detection area — four emitters disposed around the four vertices of a rectangular detection area, with two receivers at the midpoints of two opposite edges (col. 2, ll. 44-53 (approx.); FIGS. 1-2) — the arrangement resolving object position along perpendicular X and Y axes from the left/right and upper/lower emitter pairs (col. 5, l. 28 – col. 6, l. 11 (approx.), Eqs. 5-11), with the electronic controller activating one emitter at a time so that the emitter radiation does not interfere (col. 3, ll. 20-23 and ll. 36-40 (approx.); ’580 claim 3). [Note: ’580 does not recite a numeric 90° angle; the orthogonality is supplied by the rectangular vertex arrangement and the perpendicular-axis coordinate resolution. The known-geometry selection rationale below carries the remaining distance.] It would have been obvious to arrange the first and second directions orthogonally as taught by ’580, as orthogonal beam paths maximize the angular separation between detection axes (minimizing common-mode occlusion and inter-beam interference), and selecting 90° from the finite set of workable angular arrangements is the predictable selection of a known geometry (MPEP 2143(I)(E); rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), to the extent applicable).
Regarding claim 8, ’580 discloses an electronic controller configured to control the emitters to radiate, including activating one emitter at a time (electronic controller connected with the emitters and configured to control the emitters to radiate light in predetermined wavelengths — col. 2, ll. 44-53 (approx.); the controller “only activates one emitter at a time,” which “ensures that the emitter radiation does not interfere with each other” — col. 3, ll. 20-23 and ll. 36-40 (approx.); ’580 claim 3). Chandramohan discloses case circuitry coupled to the per-cavity detectors, including a detector circuit that “periodically ‘pings’” to test for device presence under processor control (col. 19, ll. 33-36; col. 20, ll. 24-33 (approx.)). It would have been obvious for the control module of the combination to transmit a target control signal controlling the pairs of transmitters to transmit the detection signals, as controller-driven emitter activation is expressly taught by ’580 and controller-initiated detection interrogation is expressly taught by Chandramohan.
Claims 9, 10, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ’558 in view of ’727 (claims 10–11 further in view of ’090)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chandramohan and ’727 renders obvious the smart device of claim 1 as set forth above. Chandramohan further discloses the accommodated devices positively received within the case: “System 200 can include pair of earbuds 202a, 202b, a case 204 for the pair of earbuds . . . Earbuds 202a, 202b can be positioned within case 204 (e.g., within an interior space or cavity of the case defined by a housing or an insert within the housing) where they can be conveniently stored and charged” (col. 18, ll. 28-34 (approx.); FIG. 2). ’727 supplies the lighting fixtures. The combination therefore renders obvious a parameter configuration system comprising lighting fixtures and the smart device, the lighting fixtures accommodated in the smart device.
Regarding claim 10 (as interpreted per the 112(b) rejection above), Chandramohan discloses a communication module in communication connection with an external terminal when the devices are within the case (radio 217, col. 21, ll. 3-12; see also col. 54, ll. 15-27 — case-to-device instruction delivery conditioned on the devices being within the case, FIG. 50 step 5010). ’727 discloses that the instructions received from the terminal are used for configuring the lighting apparatus to work with instructed lighting parameters (communication module 670 receiving the lighting control signal from the external terminal, the controller generating light and absorbing the specified wavelength range in accordance with the requested lighting mode — col. 10, ll. 44-52 (approx.); when specific lighting information (light color, luminance, wavelength range to be absorbed, absorption ratio) is included in the received signal, the apparatus is controlled in accordance with that information — col. 11, l. 52 – col. 12, l. 6 (approx.); see also ’727 claims 9-10, reciting a communication module receiving a lighting control signal from an external terminal and control in accordance with specific lighting information). It would have been obvious to include such a module in the system of claim 9 for the reasons given for claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, the claim differs from claim 10 in locating the communication module in a connector. ’090 discloses a fixture configuration module packaged as a connectorized plug-in unit: the module “comprises a connector configured to be removably coupled with a light fixture” together with fixture control circuitry and range control circuitry (’090 claim 1; Abstract), and the module’s male connector 60 engages a mating female connector 70 of the fixture’s driver module as the module is snapped onto the fixture’s electronics housing, permitting the module to be readily attached and removed without tools (col. 14, ll. 19-56 (approx.); FIGS. 9A-9B). The module receives lighting parameter data wirelessly from an external source — a range of a lighting parameter received via NFC signaling and stored in non-volatile memory even while the connector is decoupled from the fixture (col. 16, l. 60 – col. 17, l. 17 (approx.)), and lighting parameter values received via radio circuitry 280 of the module’s user interface circuitry from a remote device 290 (col. 17, l. 57 – col. 18, l. 16 (approx.)) — and controls the fixture in accordance with the received parameters when coupled via the connector, the fixture control circuitry driving the fixture to produce light at the received values falling within the designated range while the connector transfers control signaling to the fixture (col. 17, ll. 44-56 (approx.); col. 18, ll. 8-16 (approx.); claims 1, 12, 22; see also col. 10, ll. 29-49 (approx.), limiting the fixture to designated color-temperature and lumen ranges). It would have been obvious to arrange the terminal-facing communication module in a connector as taught by ’090, as ’090 demonstrates that packaging the wirelessly receiving configuration electronics together with the fixture-mating connector as a single removable unit is a known arrangement for delivering wirelessly received lighting parameters to a fixture, and relocating the communication module to the connector is a predictable rearrangement yielding the same configuration function (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 (claims 1 and 5).
Reasons for allowance (contingent on supplemental search): The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with the two-transmitter, two-direction per-cavity detection of claim 5, an accommodating part including one or more pairs of first recess and second recess, each pair circumferentially arranged along an opening of a corresponding accommodating cavity and disposed at opposite sides of the accommodating cavity. While Chandramohan teaches per-cavity detection and ’946/’580 teach multi-directional emitter arrangements, none of the applied references teaches or suggests the claimed recess pairs structurally integrated at opposite circumferential positions of the cavity opening to accommodate the differently-directed transmitter pair.
Prosecution Insights