REISSUE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These disclosure obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances where applicants have included lexicographic definitions, either express or implied. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which Applicants are acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01.IV.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which would invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority Date
The US Patent Application No. 15/296,258 which resulted in the issuance of the US Patent No. 9,848,482, has been filed on October 18, 2016. Although the Application claimed the priority date all the way to the provisional application No. 61/094,595 filed on September 5, 2008, the Examiner concluded that the newly recited limitations of claims 11-31, pertaining to pulse width modulation and photosensitive LEDs have not been adequately supported until the filing of application No. 12/803,805, filed on July 7, 2010. Accordingly, the earliest filing date is set to July 7, 2010.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 3, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on June 17, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
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 11-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added independent claims 11, 18 and 25 recite:
Limitation 1: “produce an output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs upon application of a non-operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs” (Emphasis added)
Limitation 2: “LED driver circuitry coupled to each of the plurality of LEDs, the LED driver circuitry to provide a pulse width modulation (PWM) output such that an operative voltage is applied to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during operative portion of each PWM cycle and a non-operative voltage is applied to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during a non-operative portion of each PWM cycle” (Emphasis added)
Limitation 3: “wherein, for all or a portion of the non-operative portion of each PWM cycle, the one or more photosensitive LEDs generate an electrical output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”. (Emphasis added)
The Examiner was unable to locate support for these limitations, in the passages cited by the Applicant’s remarks filed on June 17, 2026, on pages 8 and 9, or in the remaining portion of the disclosure. The specification mentions period of time when the illumination is turned off (col.5, ll.27-30) but is silent with respect to providing non-operative current.
Furthermore, the MPEP 608.01(o) states that:
“Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”.
In this instance, the newly added claims introduce wording which is no consistent with the original disclosure.
Additionally, claims 15, 22 and 29 recite “light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs that exceeds the detected level of background illumination”. The original specification does not appear to clarify what is meant by this step.
With respect to claims 16, 23 and 30, those claims disclose: LED light fixture, wherein, responsive to the detection of the light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs that exceeds the detected level of background illumination during the non-operative portion of the PWM drive cycle, the control circuitry to further: detect a pattern of incident light on the one or more photosensitive LEDs, the pattern of incident light indicative of a binary pattern forming a message. (emphasis added)
The underlined limitations do not appear to have sufficient support in the original specification. If the Applicant disagrees, then citation of the specific support and explanation, is requested.
With respect to dependent claims 12-17, 19-24 and 26-31, those claims are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on claims 11, 18 and 25 respectively.
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 11-31 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.
Independent claim 11 recites:
Limitation 1: “produce an output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs upon application of a non-operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs”
Limitation 2: “wherein, for all or a portion of the non-operative portion of each PWM cycle, the one or more photosensitive LEDs generate an electrical output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”. (emphasis added)
Claim 18:
Limitation 1: “applying a non-operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs produce an output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”
Limitation 2: “wherein, for all or a portion of the non-operative portion of each PWM cycle, the one or more photosensitive LEDs generate an electrical output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”.
Claim 25:
Limitation 1: “applying a non-operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs produce an output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”
Limitation 2: “wherein, for all or a portion of the non-operative portion of each PWM cycle, the one or more photosensitive LEDs generate an electrical output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs”.
It is unclear whether “an electrical output” and “a level of light” recited in the first and second limitations, are the same. If it is, then the antecedents in basis must be corrected, otherwise this step appears to be redundant.
Moreover claims 11, 18 and 25 recite:
“apply an operative voltage to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during operative portion of each PWM cycle; and applying a non-operative voltage to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during a non-operative portion of each PWM cycle” (emphasis added)
It is unclear from the limitation recited above, whether the operative and non-operative voltages are applied to the same “some or all of the plurality of LEDs”, if yes then antecedents in basis must be corrected.
Similar deficiency also exists with respect to limitations:
“produce a luminous output upon application of an operative voltage” and “the LED driver circuitry to provide a pulse width modulation (PWM) output such that an operative voltage is applied” (emphasis added)
More specifically, it is unclear if the Applicant is refereeing to the same “operative voltage” in the first and second limitations. Similarly, it is also unclear whether a “luminous output” and “a pulse width modulation (PWM) output” are meant to refer to the same output. If the outputs and voltages are the same, then antecedents in basis must be corrected.
Additionally, claims 15, 22 and 29 recite “light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs that exceeds the detected level of background illumination”. If the LEDs are turned off and the background/ambient illumination (according to column 8, lines 65-66 they are interchangeable) is sensed, then there is no other source for the “incident light”, hence how can the incident light can exceed the detected level of illumination.
In the effort to advance the prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the above limitation, as detecting ambient light.
With respect to claims 16, 23 and 30, those claims are also rejected for the same rationale as claims 15, 22, 29 because of their direct dependency on claims 15, 22 and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 11-31 are rejected under 35 USC 251(a), for the following reason:
The MPEP 1401, section 35 USC 251(a) states:
“… No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue”
Accordingly claims 11-31 are rejected under 251(a) for introducing claims which lack sufficient support in the original disclosure (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above).
Recapture
Claims 11-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(I)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(A)) In the instant case, the Applicant seeks to broaden original independent claims 1 and 6 by deleting/omitting at least the patent claim language requiring, “automatically adjust the illumination based on the detected light, and to provide power to an un-powered said illumination device that is separate from an AC mains socket before screwing the illumination device into the AC mains socket”.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(B)) The record of the prior patent application (15/296,258) prosecution history indicates that in a Response filed on March 28,2017, the Applicant amended the claims to include limitation ““automatically adjust the illumination based on the detected light, and to provide power to an un-powered said illumination device that is separate from an AC mains socket before screwing the illumination device into the AC mains socket” , hence they overcame the cited prior art (Roshan et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0182294).
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance by Applicant to define the original patent claims over the art by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant case the claim limitations of ““automatically adjust the illumination based on the detected light, and to provide power to an un-powered said illumination device that is separate from an AC mains socket before screwing the illumination device into the AC mains socket”” are surrendered subject matter and some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(C)) It is noted that the reissue claims were not materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. When analyzing a reissue claim for the possibility of impermissible recapture, there are two different types of analysis that must be performed. If the reissue claim “fails” either analysis, recapture exists. First, claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165. Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. The surrendered subject matter, noted above, has been entirely eliminated from new independent reissue claims 11-31. It is noted that the added limitations do not materially narrow the patent claims to avoid recapture.
Therefore, broadened independent reissue claims 11, 18 and 25 attempt impermissible recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the ‘258 application. Dependent reissue claims dependent upon the independent claims mentioned above are rejected for similar rationale.
Furthermore, the MPEP 1412.01 II states:
II. FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONTINUING APPLICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ORIGINAL PATENT
Where a restriction (or an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a continuing application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application. A reissue applicant’s failure to timely file a continuing application is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on the elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Accordingly, this is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251. See In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 229 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). In this situation, the reissue claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for lack of any defect in the original patent and lack of any error in obtaining the original patent. In addition, amended reissue claims that clearly fall within the scope of the original non-elected claims should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251. See Ex parte Sandwick, Appeal No. 2018-008369, op. at 25 (PTAB July 23, 2019) (“narrower reissue claims fall clearly within the scope of the broader original non-elected claims, and thus within the scope of the non-elected and restricted inventions that should have been properly pursued in a divisional application, whether claimed more broadly or more narrowly.”). Compare with In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) where the court permitted the patentee to file a reissue application to present a so-called linking claim, a claim broad enough to read on or link the invention elected (and patented) together with the invention not elected. The non-elected invention(s) were inadvertently not filed as a divisional application.
Accordingly, in this instance, newly added claims 11-31 are directed to a lighting emitting diode which is aligned with the invention disclosed in the “grandparent” patent No. 9,509,525 (Application No. 12/803,805). During the prosecution of the ‘525 patent, the Examiner has issued a restriction requirement on May 28, 2013. The pending claims have been divided into three groups:
Species I: An illumination device with LEDs wherein the LEDs are used to receive optically modulated command
Species II. An illumination device with LEDs wherein the LEDs are used an ambient light sensor.
Species III. An illumination device with LEDs wherein the LEDs measure light from other LEDs to adjust a color mix.
Now looking at the underlying patent No. 9,848,482, it is evident from the set of claims filed on March 28, 2017 that the invention is directed to an illumination device wherein light output is adjusted based on the sensed light and providing power to an un-powered illumination device separate from an AC socket. This embodiment is a stark contrast from the illumination device connected to a power source, wherein pulse width modulation is applied.
Consequently, the newly filed claims in the reissue application No. 19/240,360, are directed to the invention previously disclosed and restricted in the “grandparent” patent No. 9,509,525, thus per MPEP 1412.01 II, “the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application”.
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 11, 18 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to an illumination device having an “on-state” which corresponds to claimed operative voltage and periodic gaps in produced in illumination corresponding to non-operative voltage. Furthermore, ‘525 patent also teaches synchronization pulses (i.e. pulse width modulation) and detecting incident light (i.e. photosensitive capability) during the off-state.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 11-15, 17-22 and 24-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Roshan et al, “Roshan” (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0182294).
With respect to claims 11, 18 and 25, Roshan discloses A light emitting diode (LED) light fixture, comprising:
a plurality of LEDs (Figure 12, elements 101, 102 and 103 and para. [0092], wherein each of those numerals may correspond to a plurality of identical “blue (or green) LEDs”), wherein the plurality of LEDs include one or more photosensitive LEDs (Abstract, “for sensing a light intensity using at least one of the light sources as a photosensor”) configured to:
produce a luminous output upon application of an operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs (para. [0010] and [0030], wherein driving an LED such that light is produced, corresponds to producing a luminous output upon applying an operative voltage); and
produce an output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs upon application of a non-operative voltage to the photosensitive LEDs (para. [0026] and [0089], wherein the light output is measured and in response to the incident light, the output is produced and fed back to adjust emitted light output accordingly); and LED driver circuitry coupled to each of the plurality of LEDs, the LED driver circuitry to provide a pulse width modulation (PWM) output such that an operative voltage is applied to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during operative portion of each PWM cycle and a non-operative voltage is applied to some or all of the plurality of LEDs during a non-operative portion of each PWM cycle (para. [0089], [0010] and [0098], wherein pulse width modulation is selectively applied to the LEDs. Some or all LEDs can be ON or some or all LEDs can be turned OFF);
wherein, for all or a portion of the non-operative portion of each PWM cycle, the one or more photosensitive LEDs generate an electrical output indicative of a level of light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs (para. [0026] and [0089], wherein the light output is measured and in response to the incident light, when LED is OFF, the output is produced and fed back to adjust emitted light output accordingly (i.e. detection mode)).
With respect to claims 12, 19 and 26, Roshan discloses the LED light fixture of claim 11, further comprising control circuitry coupled to the LED driver circuitry, the control circuitry to: receive at least one input signal indicative of at least one of: a target fixture intensity or a target fixture output color (para. [0076], wherein the signal from the adjustment circuitry with a target spectral information corresponds to the claimed “input signal”);
determine, using at least one of: the received target luminous flux or the target output color, a respective PWM cycle for each respective one of the plurality of LEDs (para. [0076], wherein the measurement of the incoming information is compared with the target information and based on the result of comparison, the adjustment can be carried out); and communicate the determined PWM cycle information to the LED driver circuitry (para. [0098]).
With respect to claims 13, 20 and 27, Roshan discloses the LED light fixture of claim 12, the control circuitry to further: synchronize at least a portion of the non-operative portion of the PWN cycle for each of the plurality of LEDs in which the plurality of LEDs receive a non-operative voltage (para. [0010] and [0101], wherein voltage is adjusted in the Pulse Width Modulation mode).
With respect to claims 14, 21 and 28, Roshan discloses the LED light fixture of claim 13, the control circuitry to further: responsive to the application of a non-operative voltage to the plurality of LEDs, determine a level of background illumination using the one or more photosensitive LEDs (para. [0089], wherein responsive to the application of a non-operative voltage (i.e. while lights are turned OFF), the ambient light is detected/measured. Ambient light levels are further discussed in para. [0020]).
With respect to claims 15, 22 and 29, Roshan discloses the LED light fixture of claim 14, the control circuitry to further: detect, during the non-operative portion of the PWM drive cycle, light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs that exceeds the detected level of background illumination (para. [0089], wherein responsive to the application of a non-operative voltage (i.e. while lights are turned OFF), the ambient light is detected/measured. Ambient light levels are further discussed in para. [0020]1).
With respect to claims 17,24 and 31, The LED light fixture of claim 13, the control circuitry to further: cause the LED driver circuitry to apply an operative voltage to one or more of the plurality of LEDs for at least a portion of the non-operative portion of the PWM cycle; and responsive to the application of the operative voltage to the one or more of the plurality of LEDs, measure a luminous intensity produced by the one or more of the plurality of LEDs using the one or more photosensitive LEDs (para. [0089]).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 23 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roshan in view of Suzuki (US Publication No. 2007/0058987).
With respect to claims 16, 23 and 30, Roshan teaches the LED light fixture of claim 15, wherein, responsive to the detection of the light incident on the one or more photosensitive LEDs that exceeds the detected level of background illumination during the non-operative portion of the PWM drive cycle (para. [0089], wherein responsive to the application of a non-operative voltage (i.e. while lights are turned OFF), the ambient light is detected/measured. Ambient light levels are further discussed in para. [0020]2), however he does not explicitly teach the control circuitry to further: detect a pattern of incident light on the one or more photosensitive LEDs, the pattern of incident light indicative of a binary pattern forming a message.
On the other hand, Suzuki teaches visible light communication comprising transmitter and receiver where the control circuitry to further: detect a pattern of incident light on the one or more photosensitive LEDs, the pattern of incident light indicative of a binary pattern forming a message (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate Suzuki’s teaching about visible light communication, into Roshan’s illumination device to further increase utility/functionality of the lighting system.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA M LIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8445. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184.
All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed:
Patent Center
Patent Center (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center) to file and manage your applications and requests.
By Mail to: Mail Stop Reissue
Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-9900
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Bulding
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/H.B.P/
Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See the claim interpretation as explained under 35 U.S.C 112(b), page 8
2 See the claim interpretation as explained under 35 U.S.C 112(b), page 8
Prosecution Insights