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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Matthew V. Harte for Battery Powered Control Device Including a Rotation Portion filed 6/05/25 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1,6-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12354468 in view of Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are recited in the patented claims. The patent claims are silent on teaching the illuminating device is LEDs. The reference of Asayama et al teaches a control device that uses LEDs to as the illumination device for providing visual indication (paragraph 0133, 0145-0147).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189.
Regarding claim 1, Asayama et al. teaches a control device comprising:
a wireless communication circuit configured to transmit wireless signals (infrared, paragraph 094);
at least one light emitting diode (LED)[paragraph 073] ;
a control circuit (21); and
a battery configured to produce a battery voltage for powering the wireless communication
circuit, the at least one LED, and the control circuit (fig.5, paragraph 099);
wherein the control circuit is configured to control the wireless communication circuit to
transmit the wireless signals (paragraph 0148)and to control the at least one LED to illuminate the at least one LED in different segments of time within different segments of time of a repeatable time period. (the LED is activated during the time the button is press, paragraph 0133, 0145-0147).
Regarding claim 13, Asayama teaches the repeatable time period comprises a plurality of
predefined segments of time, and wherein the control circuit is configured to perform different tasks
within each predefined segment of time of the repeatable time period (paragraph 019,022,030,039).
Regarding claim 15, Asayama teaches a method comprising:
producing a battery voltage for powering a wireless communication circuit, at least one light
emitting diode (LED), and a control circuit (fig. 5, paragraph 099);
controlling the wireless communication circuit to transmit the wireless signals during a first
segment of a repeatable time period (paragraph 039, 094); and
controlling the at least one LED to illuminate the at least one LED during a second segment
of the repeatable time period (paragraph 030,039,099).
Regarding claim 17, Asayama teaches controlling a first subset of LEDs of the at least one LED to illuminate during the second segment of time of the repeatable time period (paragraph 078,0133); and
controlling a second subset of LEDs of the at least one LED to illuminate during a third
segment of time of the repeatable time period (paragraph 079,0133).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189 in view of Pyle US Patent Application Publication 20080012692..
Regarding claim 2,16, Asayama et al teaches the control device comprises a plurality of LEDs (paragraph 073);
wherein, within the repeatable time period, the control circuit is configured to:
control a first subset of LEDs to illuminate during a first segment of time of the repeatable
time period (paragraph 078,0133);
control a second subset of LEDs to illuminate during a second segment of time of the
repeatable time period (paragraph 079,0133); and
control the wireless communication circuit is transmit the wireless signals during a third
segment of time of the repeatable time period (paragraph 0150). Asayama et al is silent on teaching the control circuit is configured to pulse-width modulate the LEDs to control the LEDs to
illuminate. Pyle in an analogous art teaches pulse-width modulate the LEDs to control the LEDs to
illuminate (paragraph 041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Asayama et al. as disclosed by Pyle because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Asayama in order to further control the visual effect of the LEDs.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189 in view of Yamaguchi US Patent 7,342,187.
Regarding claim 3, Asayama is silent on teaching a rotatable portion that is configured to be
continuously rotated. Yamaguchi in an analogous art teaches a remote control that include a rotatable portion that is configured to be continuously rotated (col. 4 lines 39-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Asayama as disclosed by Yamaguchi because such modification of one type of input means for another and providing the predictable result of enabling input to the remote control for generating command and control to the controllable device.
Regarding claim 4, Asayama teaches a light bar that comprises the at least one
LED and is configured to be illuminated to display visual feedback (paragraph 0133, 0145-0147).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189 in view of Yamaguchi US Patent 7,342,187 and further in view of Del Toro US Patent Application Publication 20150187187.
Regarding claim 5, Asayama et al teaches the control circuit is configured to control the light bar to be illuminated for a first predetermined amount of time (paragraph 0133, 0145-0147) but is silent on teaching a rotating portion of the remote control and the control circuit is configured to fade the light bar to off over a second predetermined amount of time. Yamaguchi in an analogous art teaches a remote control that include a rotatable portion that is configured to be continuously rotated (col. 4 lines 39-53). Del Toro in an analogous art teaches the control circuit is configured to fade the LED light to off over a second predetermined amount of time (paragraph 048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Asayama et al as disclosed by Yamaguchi in view of Del Toro because such modification of one type of input means for another and providing the predictable result of enabling input to the remote control for generating command and control to the controllable device and creating a desired visual effect.
Claim(s) 11-12,14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0164189 in view of Qi et al. US Patent Application Publication 20140002754.
Regarding claims 11-12,14, and 18-20, Asayama et al teaches the control circuit is configured to control the wireless communication circuit to transmit the wireless signals and to control the at least one LED to illuminate the at least one LED (paragraph 0133, 0145-0147). Asayama teaches the repeatable time period comprises a plurality of predefined segments of time, and wherein the control circuit is configured to perform different tasks within each predefined segment of time of the repeatable time period (paragraph 019,022,030,039) but is silent on teaching an analog-to-digital converter; wherein the control circuit is configured to sample inputs of the analog-to-digital converter during the different segments of time within the repeatable time period as the segments of time. Qi et al. in an analogous art teaches an analog-to-digital converter, wherein the control circuit is configured to sample inputs of the analog-to-digital converter during the different segments of time within the repeatable time period as the segments of time (paragraph 015,023). Qi et al. teaches the control circuit is configured to write in the memory during the different segments of time within the repeatable time period as the segments of time (paragraph 030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Asayama et al as disclosed by Qi et al. because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Asayama et al in order to convert the analog input into a control signal for controlling the controllable device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights