DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12389502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent’s claims similar limitations in the applicant’s claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19 and 20 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.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it depends on itself.
Claim 20 is rejected as including the indefiniteness of claim 19.
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) 1-6,8-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biery et al. (US 8786196) in view of Zhang (US 2014052186), Bosua et al. (US 2016007431) and Filson et al. (US 20130099124).
As to claim 1, Biery et al.’s figure 14A shows a control device for controlling an intensity level of a lighting load in a load control system, the control device comprising: a plurality of light sources (814). The figure fails to show a light bar configured to be illuminated by the plurality of light sources. However, Zhang’s figure 2 shows that LEDs are arranged in a light bar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange Biery et al.’s LEDs in a light bar for the purpose of protecting the LEDs. The modified Biery et al.’s figure further shows a control circuit (figure 4) configured to control an amount of power delivered to the lighting load to control a present intensity level of the lighting load. The modified Biery et al.’s figure further fails to show that the control device comprises a proximity sensor. However, Bosua et al.’s figures show a similar device that comprises a proximity sensor (¶0046). Bosua et al.’s ¶0049 teaches “the predetermined light emitting element can always display the visual indicator indicative of the receiving device setting value”, and ¶0071 teaches that “power provision to the light emitting elements and/or communication system is shut off after there has been a lack of proximal user detection for a predetermined period of time”. Filson et al.’s figure 8A and ¶0055 further teaches proximity sensor operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include Bosua et al.’s proximity sensor and LEDs’ operation to Biery et al.’s controller for the purpose of saving power consumption and improving visual presentation. Thus, the modified Biery et al.’s figure further shows that the control circuit is configured to, in response to detecting that a user is within close proximity of the control device (detected by the proximity sensor), determine whether the lighting load is in an off state or an on state (Biery et al.’s step 412 in figure 7), wherein, when the lighting load is in the on state, the control circuit is configured to illuminate at least a subset of the plurality of light sources to form an illuminated portion on the light bar to indicate the present intensity level of the lighting load (step 414 and Bosua et al. teaches that “the predetermined light emitting element can always display the visual indicator indicative of the receiving device setting value”), and when the lighting load is in the off state (step 418), the control circuit is configured to illuminate at least a subset of the plurality of light sources to form the illuminated portion on the light bar to indicate a last-known intensity level of the lighting load before the lighting load was turned off (Bosua et al.’s teaches that “the predetermined light emitting element can always display the visual indicator indicative of the receiving device setting value”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art configure the light bar to display visual indicator indicative of the light load the preset level when the light load is off for the purpose of improving visual presentation).
As to claim 2, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that before the lighting load was turned off (step 420 in figure 7), the control circuit is configured to store the last-known intensity of the lighting load in a memory of the control device (step 418 in figure 8).
As to claim 3, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that the control circuit is configured to determine the subset of the plurality of light sources to illuminate based on the user being within close proximity of the control device (Filson et al.’s ¶0055).
As to claim 4, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that when the lighting load is on, the control circuit is further configured to adjust the illuminated portion of the light bar based on the present intensity level of the lighting load such that the illuminated portion expands or contracts along the light bar in response to adjustments in the intensity level of the lighting load.
As to claim 5, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show a controllably conductive device (210 in figure 4) coupled in series electrical connection between an alternating-current (AC) power source and the lighting load and configured to control the intensity level of the lighting load; the control circuit is configured to generate the control signal for controlling the controllably conductive device in response to a user input received via the control device.
As to claim 6, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show a hot terminal (upper terminal of 202 in figure 4) adapted to be coupled to the AC power source (202); and a dimmed hot terminal (upper terminal of 120) adapted to be coupled to the lighting load (204); the controllably conductive device is electrically coupled between the hot terminal and the dimmed hot terminal.
As to claim 8, the modified Biery et al.’s figures teach a wireless communication circuit (column 2, lines 12-29, teaches that the smart dimmers are used in lighting control system. Bosua et al.’s ¶0040-¶0041 also teach that the switch communicates with remote control devices) configured to transmit digital messages to the lighting load; and a direct-current (DC) power source (it is inherent that smart dimmer, i.e., remote control devices comprise DC power source, i.e., battery) configured to power the plurality of light sources, the control circuit, and the wireless communication circuit (in the remote control device).
As to claim 9, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that the DC power source comprises a battery (remote control devices comprising batter is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include battery in the remote control device for the purpose of powering internal components).
As to claim 10, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that the control device comprises a tabletop remote control device (keypads, Biery et al.’s col. 2, lines 12-19) that is configured to be placed on a surface.
As to claim 11, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that the control device comprises a handheld remote control device (smartphone, Bosua et al.’s ¶0041) that is configured to fit within a user's hand.
As to claim 13, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show an actuation portion (knob); and a capacitive touch element (Bosua et al.’s ¶0028) configured to detect that a user is within close proximity of the control device, wherein the capacitive touch element is located adjacent to a rear surface of the actuation portion (Bosua et al. teaches that “capacitive touch sensor arranged along the top of the switch distal the base, but alternatively otherwise located”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the sensor as claimed for the purpose of protecting the sensor.
As to claim 14, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show an electric field sensor (capacitive touch sensor) configured to detect that a user is within close proximity of the control device.
As to claim 15, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show the control circuit is configured to, in response to detecting that a user is within close proximity of the control device, illuminate the plurality of light sources to form a single illuminated portion on the light bar, the control circuit further configured to adjust the illuminated portion of the light bar such that an end point of the single illuminated portion moves in a first direction along the light bar when the intensity level of the lighting load is raised, the control circuit further configured to adjust the illuminated portion of the light bar such that the end point of the single illuminated portion moves in a second direction along the light bar when the intensity level of the lighting load is lowered, the second direction being opposite to the first direction.
Claim(s) 7,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biery et al. (US 8786196) in view of Zhang (US 2014052186), Bosua et al. (US 2016007431), Filson et al. (US 20130099124) and Altonen et al. (US 20100127626).
As to claim 7, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show a power supply (224 in figure 4). The figures fail to show that the power supply is electrically coupled in parallel with the controllably conductive device. However, Altonen et al.’s figures 11 and 12 shows a similar device that its power supply 538 is connected in parallel with controllably conductive device 530. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to connect Biery et al.’s power supply in parallel with the controllably conductive device for the purpose of achieving desired DV output voltage. The modified Biery et al.’s figures further shows that the power supply is configured to conduct a charging current through the lighting load for generating a direct-current (DC) supply voltage for powering the plurality of light sources and the control circuit (see Filson et al.’s figure 12).
As to claim 19 arranging the illuminated portions as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to achieve optimal space occupation and visualization.
As to claim 20, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that a length of the illuminated portion is indicative of the intensity of the lighting load (see Altonen et al.’s figure 13B).
Claim(s) 12, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biery et al. (US 8786196) in view of Zhang (US 2014052186), Bosua et al. (US 2016007431), Filson et al. (US 20130099124) and Swatsky et al. (US 20140117871).
As to claim 12, the modified Biery et al.’s figures fail to show a base portion configured to be mounted over an actuator of a mechanical switch that controls power delivered to the lighting load. However, Swatsky et al.’s figures show a similar device that comprises a base portion configured to be mounted over an actuator of a mechanical switch that controls power delivered to the lighting load. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a base portion as claimed in Biery et al.’s device for the purpose of limiting user electrical work requirement when installing the device.
As to claim 15, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show the control circuit is configured to, in response to detecting that a user is within close proximity of the control device, illuminate the plurality of light sources to form a single illuminated portion on the light bar, the control circuit further configured to adjust the illuminated portion of the light bar such that an end point of the single illuminated portion moves in a first direction along the light bar when the intensity level of the lighting load is raised, the control circuit further configured to adjust the illuminated portion of the light bar such that the end point of the single illuminated portion moves in a second direction along the light bar when the intensity level of the lighting load is lowered, the second direction being opposite to the first direction.
As to claim 19 arranging the illuminated portions as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to achieve optimal space occupation and visualization.
As to claim 20, the modified Biery et al.’s figures show that a length of the illuminated portion is indicative of the intensity of the lighting load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the Double Patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights