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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120/121 of Application Nos. 18/174,954; 17/827,021 (now U.S. 11,596,038); 16/883,079 (now U.S. 11,350,500); 15/959,593 (now U.S. 10,666,133); and 14/975,560 (now U.S. 9,954,435), and under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of Provisional Application No. 62/094,128, filed December 19, 2014. For purposes of this action, claims 1-24 are accorded an effective filing date of December 19, 2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 14, 2025 complies with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 (the determining and causing steps), claim 10 and claim 11: "by the by calibration control circuitry" should read "by the calibration control circuitry."
Claim 21: "further cause the calibration control circuitry:" should read "further cause the calibration control circuitry to:".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-21 and 24 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, each claim recites "a power distribution device coupled between a power source and the electric load device." The base claim (claim 1, 9 or 17, respectively) already recites "a power distribution device coupled between a power source and the electric load device." It is unclear whether the dependent claim introduces a second power distribution device and a second power source, or refers back to the ones already recited. Each of these claims also recites "via the one or more load lines," for which there is insufficient antecedent basis, because none of claims 1, 9 and 17 recites load lines. Claims 3-5, 11-13 and 19-21 are rejected for incorporating these deficiencies through their dependency. For purposes of examination, the phrase is read as "the power distribution device ... via one or more load lines."
Regarding claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20 and 21, the parent claims (2, 10 and 18) require the output signals to be transmitted "via the one or more load lines." These claims then require the transmission to be a radio frequency (RF) signal sent by "communication interface circuitry." The specification describes RF transmission as a wireless alternative to signaling over the load wiring, not as a form of it (see paragraphs [0031] and [0061]: "wirelessly transmitting a digital message via the RF signal 108 or by transmitting a digital message on the load wiring 106"). It is therefore unclear whether the RF signal must be conducted on the load lines or may be sent wirelessly, and so whether these claims narrow their parent claims or depart from them. For purposes of examination, the claims are read to cover either.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites "cause a power distribution device to:". It is unclear whether this is the power distribution device of claim 1 or a different one. For examination, it is read as "the power distribution device."
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 24, each claim recites "the current periodic incremental change," for which there is insufficient antecedent basis. The base claims recite "a plurality of periodic incremental changes" and "the periodic incremental change," but not a "current" change. For examination, the phrase is read as the most recent of the periodic incremental changes.
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 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (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.
The safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply. The present application was filed as a continuation of Application No. 18/174,954, not as a divisional filed as a result of a restriction requirement. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2009); MPEP § 804.01.
In the rejections below, the disclosure of each reference patent is consulted only to construe the scope of its claims. It is not treated as prior art. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441-42; MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.2.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,038. For claims 8, 16 and 24 the rejection is further in view of Wu (US 2012/0081016 A1). For claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20 and 21 it is further in view of Steiner et al. (US 8,451,116 B2). For claims 17-24 it is further in view of Nuhfer et al. (US 2011/0080110 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reference claim 10 recites a system comprising:
calibration device circuitry disposed at the electric load device, with voltage sense circuitry to measure a load voltage at the electric load device at a first periodic interval;
calibration device control circuitry to determine whether the measured load voltage exceeds a stored threshold voltage value and, when it does, to generate a load voltage output signal;
power supply circuitry, including load regulation circuitry, to provide and adjust a source voltage; and
system control circuitry that generates a source voltage control signal at a third periodic interval while the output signal is absent, causing an incremental change in the source voltage at that interval, and that ceases generating the control signal when the output signal is received.
This is a species of instant claim 1. The calibration device circuitry "disposed at" the load measures the electric feed parameter (load voltage) "within a defined distance of" the load. Because the load voltage is measured at a periodic interval while the source voltage is stepped at the third periodic interval, the measurements are indicative of each of the periodic incremental changes. The stored threshold voltage value is the first defined threshold value. The power supply circuitry is the power distribution device coupled between a power source and the load. When the threshold is exceeded, the output signal causes the incremental change to be discontinued. A later genus claim is anticipated by an earlier species claim. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d at 1053; Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The remaining claims correspond as follows:
Instant claims
Reference claims ('038)
Notes
1
10
Anticipated by reference claim 10 (species).
2
10, 16
Signal sent to the power distribution device over the power wiring.
3
10, 14
Current spike on the power wiring.
4
10, 15
Reference claim 15 recites a wireless signal. RF is the well-known wireless medium for this kind of message, as Steiner shows (the daylight sensor sends "digital messages (i.e., wireless signals) to the dimmer switch 110 via RF signals 106," col. 4, ln. 52-58). Substituting RF would have been obvious.
5
10, 15
The wireless signal goes to "system control circuitry," which is communicatively coupled to the power supply circuitry. That circuitry is a system controller operatively coupled to the power distribution device. RF as for claim 4.
6
1
The output signal is generated at the second periodic interval while the load voltage is below the threshold. When the signal fails to be received, the system control circuitry ceases the incremental change.
7
1, 4
Current spike on the power wiring.
8
10 + Wu
See the Wu analysis for claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. It would have been obvious to add Wu's second, upper threshold (VHIGH) with a single-count decrement, so that the source voltage returns to the last step that did not overshoot.
9-16
1, 4, 10, 14-16 (+ Wu for 16)
These method claims recite the same steps that the reference system performs. Claiming the method of operating the claimed system is an obvious variation.
17-24
same as 1-8 (+ Nuhfer; + Wu for 24)
Implementing the calibration device control circuitry as a microcontroller executing stored instructions would have been obvious. Nuhfer's LED driver control circuit "may comprise, for example, a microcontroller or any other suitable processing device," coupled to "a memory 170" (Nuhfer ¶¶ [0051], [0053]).
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,666,133. For claims 4, 12 and 20 the rejection is further in view of Steiner. For claims 17-20 and 22-24 it is further in view of Nuhfer. For claims 8, 16 and 24 it is further in view of Wu.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reference claims 1-3 recite the following:
a calibration device coupled to the load wiring that determines the magnitude of the load voltage across the load (measurement of an electric feed parameter within a defined distance of the load);
the calibration device determines that the load voltage is greater than or equal to a predetermined level (the first defined threshold value) and provides feedback;
a load regulation device (the power distribution device between the source and the load) adjusts the output voltage based on that feedback; and
the load regulation device gradually increases the output voltage "through a plurality of periodic steps" until the feedback is received, and so discontinues the periodic incremental change.
Instant claims
Reference claims ('133)
1
1-3
2
1-3, 6 (feedback via the load wiring)
3
7 (current pulse through the load wiring)
4
5 (digital message by wireless transmission) + Steiner (RF)
6, 7
9 (regular-interval current pulses; increase until no pulse is sensed for longer than the interval)
8
4 (decrease the output voltage after feedback that the load voltage is greater than the predetermined level) + Wu (single-count step back)
9-12, 14-16
13-18 (method), with the same correspondences
17-20, 22-24
as above + Nuhfer
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-19 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,081. For claims 8, 16 and 24 the rejection is further in view of Wu.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reference claim 1 recites control circuitry that:
provides a gradually increasing output voltage to the load;
receives a pulsed power line communication (PLC) output signal from a remote calibration device disposed proximate the load, over the power lines, "indicative of a measured load voltage at the electrical load compared to a defined threshold voltage"; and
halts the gradual increase based on receipt or non-receipt of that signal.
To produce that signal, the remote calibration device must measure the load voltage near the load and compare it with the defined threshold. The instant claims are directed to that cooperating calibration side of the same arrangement, and claiming it separately is an obvious variation of the reference claims.
Instant claims
Reference claims ('081)
1, 2
1 (PLC signal over the power lines halts the increase)
3
1 (a pulsed signal on the power lines; a current spike is an obvious form of such a pulse)
6, 7
2-4 (pulses at a first frequency while at or below the threshold; reception ceases above it)
8
1 + Wu
9-11, 14-16
8-14 (method)
17-19, 22-24
15-21 (storage device with instructions)
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,954,435. For claims 4, 12 and 20 the rejection is further in view of Steiner. For claims 17-20 and 22-24 it is further in view of Nuhfer. For claims 8, 16 and 24 it is further in view of Wu.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reference claims 1, 3, 4 and 14 (and likewise claims 29-30) recite:
a control circuit that receives feedback from a device coupled in parallel with the load, which senses the load voltage across the load (measurement circuitry near the load);
the control circuit determines from the feedback whether the load voltage has reached a predetermined level;
the control circuit gradually increases the output voltage "through a plurality of periodic steps" until the feedback indicates the level has been reached or exceeded; and
the device is a calibration device coupled to the load wiring near the load (claims 14 and 30).
Combining the claimed control circuit and the claimed sensing device into one apparatus, as instant claim 1 does, is an obvious variation.
Instant claims
Reference claims ('435)
1
1, 3, 4, 14; 29, 30
2
8 (feedback via the load wiring)
3
9 (current spike)
4
18, 19 (digital message received wirelessly from the calibration device) + Steiner
6, 7
11 (regular-interval current spikes)
8
5 (decrease to a final magnitude after feedback that the level was exceeded) + Wu
9-12, 14-16
the method of operating the device of the corresponding claims (obvious variation)
17-20, 22-24
as above + Nuhfer
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:
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2012/0081016 A1, published April 5, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an electric load device calibration apparatus. Wu's LED driver with adaptive dynamic headroom voltage control (FIGS. 1-3) sets the supply voltage for the LED loads according to conditions sensed at the loads. Wu discloses each limitation as follows:
Calibration control circuitry. Load dependent comparison logic 130 and up-down counter circuit 134 (FIGS. 1, 3). "The up-down counter circuit 134 receives the UP-DOWN control signals from the load dependent comparison logic 130 and a clock signal from a clock circuit 136." (¶ [0016]; see also ¶ [0015]: logic 130 "provides UP and DOWN control signals to an up-down counter circuit 134").
Electrical parameter measurement circuitry providing an input indicative of electric feed parameters measured within a defined distance of an electric load device. The multi-channel LED driver circuitry 110 and find minimum logic 132 (FIGS. 1-2) monitor the headroom voltage at nodes 108 of the LED strings 106 (the electric load device) and supply the minimum headroom voltage VDMIN to logic 130. "Each LED string 106 has a separate headroom regulation voltage associated therewith that is monitored by the multi-channel LED driver circuitry 110 at nodes 108." (¶ [0011]). Find minimum logic 132 "is connected to each of the nodes 108 at the bottom of each LED string 106" and provides the minimum headroom voltage "to the load dependent comparison logic 130" (¶ [0014]). Nodes 108 are at the LED strings themselves, so the measurement is made within a defined distance of the load.
The feed parameters are indicative of each of a plurality of periodic incremental changes to the electric load device. The counter is clocked by clock circuit 136, and "[d]uring each cycle, the counter 134 counts the 'UP' or 'DOWN' signal that will increase or decrease the reference voltage VREF" (¶ [0016]). The resulting reference voltage "is provided to the voltage regulator 102 as the reference voltage VREF" (¶ [0016]), and VREF sets the regulated output voltage VOUT supplied to the strings, so VOUT changes in periodic increments. The headroom voltage at nodes 108 is the portion of VOUT remaining after the string voltage drop, so it reflects each increment. See also "[i]f VDMIN is lower than VLOW, the UP control signal is set to a logical 'high' level indicating that the output voltage VOUT of the voltage regulator 102 needs to rise" (¶ [0019]).
Determine whether the parameters exceed a first defined threshold value. Logic 130 compares VDMIN with the low threshold VLOW (FIG. 3).
Responsive to that determination, cause a power distribution device coupled between a power source and the load to discontinue the periodic incremental change. Once VDMIN exceeds VLOW, the UP signal is no longer asserted and the stepping stops: "As long as VDMIN is within the range of the hysteresis voltage, the output voltage VOUT remains unchanged." (¶ [0021]). See also FIG. 5: when the headroom voltage is neither above VHIGH nor below VLOW, "the reference voltage is maintained at step 518 at its present level" (¶ [0023]). The voltage regulator 102 (a DC/DC converter, ¶ [0010]) "receives an input voltage VIN" and "provides a regulated output voltage VOUT at node 104 to a plurality of LED strings 106" (¶ [0010]), so it is coupled between a power source and the load.
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses an electric load device calibration method, which is the method performed in the ordinary operation of the circuitry mapped above for claim 1 (FIG. 5; ¶ [0023]: monitoring the headroom voltage at nodes 108 at step 502, determining the minimum at step 504, comparing it with the thresholds at steps 508-514, increasing VREF at step 516, and maintaining VREF at step 518). The receiving, determining and causing steps are met as set out for claim 1.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 1 for the reasons above. Wu further discloses a second defined threshold value, VHIGH, and on exceeding it causes the regulator to decrement the output voltage: "If VDMIN is higher than VHIGH, the DOWN signal is set to a logical 'high' level indicating that the output of the voltage regulator 102 VOUT needs to drop." (¶ [0019]; see also ¶ [0023], steps 510-512). The up-down counter then counts the DOWN signal "[d]uring each cycle" to decrease the N-bit value that sets VREF (¶ [0016]).
Wu does not expressly state that one down-count returns VOUT to the value that preceded the most recent up-step. However, Wu's increments and decrements are counts of a single up-down counter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date, to use equal up and down counts, so that a single decrement restores the output to the last step that did not exceed the upper threshold. This is the predictable result of how an up-down counter operates, and it offers a reasonable expectation of success in settling the supply at the lowest step that clears the lower threshold. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, the method claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Nuhfer et al. (US 2011/0080110 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses the receiving, determining and causing operations of the calibration control circuitry, as set out for claim 1. Wu implements those operations in comparator logic and a counter. It does not disclose a non-transitory, machine-readable storage device containing instructions that, when executed, cause the circuitry to perform them.
Nuhfer teaches an LED driver whose control circuit "may comprise, for example, a microcontroller or any other suitable processing device, such as, for example, a programmable logic device (PLD), a microprocessor, or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)" (¶ [0051]). That control circuit "is also coupled to a memory 170 for storing the operational characteristics of the LED driver 100" (¶ [0053]). A microcontroller performs its control functions by executing instructions stored in non-transitory memory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement Wu's comparison and counting operations as instructions stored in a non-transitory storage device and executed by a microcontroller, as Nuhfer teaches for LED driver control. Doing so would allow the thresholds and the stepping behavior to be set in firmware. This is the substitution of one known implementation for another with predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the claim for the reasons given for claims 8 and 17.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Riesebosch (US 8,669,711 B2, issued March 11, 2014). Claim 18 is rejected over Wu in view of Nuhfer and further in view of Riesebosch.
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 1. In Wu, the UP/DOWN control signals pass from logic 130 to counter 134 within the driver. Wu does not disclose sending the output signals to the power distribution device via load lines.
Riesebosch teaches a dynamic-headroom LED power supply 102 that serves remote LED fixtures 104 over a power bus 112. Each fixture "includes a sensing circuit for detecting when that fixture 104 ... reaches a maximum drawn current level and outputs a signal indicative of this condition," and the power-supply unit "ceases increasing [the supply voltage] when it is received" (col. 5, ln. 51-60). As shown in FIG. 4, the supply voltage "increases until it detects a change 402 in a signal 404 from one of the fixtures 104. At this point 406, [it] stops increasing" (col. 6, ln. 5-7). The sensing circuit "may be disposed in the fixtures 104 and communicate with the power-supply unit 102 via the power bus 112" (col. 3, ln. 31-35), and the signal may be sent "via signals 128 superimposed or piggybacked on the power bus 112" (col. 4, ln. 43-49; see also col. 6, ln. 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to place Wu's load-side sensing and threshold comparison at the load and to send the resulting output signal to the regulator over the load lines, as Riesebosch teaches. This lets one supply serve remote loads, with the stepping keyed to the voltage actually present at the load rather than at the supply, and it uses conductors already present instead of a dedicated command bus. Riesebosch expressly identifies the need: because a fixture is "located remotely (i.e., physically separate) from the power-supply unit," connecting additional "power and/or control wires between the fixture 104 and power supply unit 102 would be difficult, impossible, or prohibitively expensive to implement" (col. 3, ln. 58-63). This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2, with Nuhfer supplying the storage device for claim 18 as set out for claim 17.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Riesebosch and further in view of Steiner et al. (US 8,451,116 B2). Claim 20 is rejected over Wu in view of Nuhfer, Riesebosch and Steiner.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu and Riesebosch teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Riesebosch further teaches that "the communication may be sent wirelessly or by any other method known in the art" (col. 4, ln. 49-51; see also col. 6, ln. 20-22: signal 404 "may be sent via a dedicated command bus 126, over the power bus 112, or wirelessly as desired"). Steiner teaches a load-side sensor whose communication circuitry sends RF signals to the lighting load control device: "The daylight sensor 120 is operable to wirelessly transmit digital messages (i.e., wireless signals) to the dimmer switch 110 via RF signals 106, such that the dimmer switch 110 controls the present light intensity LPRES of the lighting load 104 in response to the total light intensity LT-SNSR measured by the daylight sensor 120." (col. 4, ln. 52-58; see also col. 22, ln. 12-18, applying the concepts to "drivers for light-emitting diodes (LEDs)").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to send the output signal of Wu as modified by Riesebosch as an RF signal from communication interface circuitry, as Steiner teaches. RF is a known wireless medium for sensor-to-driver messages in lighting control, and the substitution gives predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4, with Nuhfer supplying the storage device for claim 20 as set out for claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 19 and 21-23 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 3, 11 and 19. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations, that the calibration control circuitry causes the periodic incremental change to be discontinued by transmitting a current spike to the power distribution device via the load lines that couple it to the electric load device.
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22 and 23. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest periodically transmitting an output signal to the power distribution device while the received feed parameters do not exceed the first threshold, and causing the incremental change to be discontinued by discontinuing that transmission once the threshold is exceeded, in combination with the other limitations.
Wu's UP signal is a level held by the comparison logic, not a periodic transmission to the power distribution device.
Riesebosch's fixture signal 404 is a single state change, not a periodic transmission.
Claims 5, 13 and 21. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations, transmitting the output signal as an RF signal to a system controller that is operatively coupled to the power distribution device and that causes the incremental change to be discontinued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Archibald, US 8,278,830 B2 (US 2010/0013395 A1): dynamic headroom control that steps the boost regulator reference in response to window comparators at the bottom of the LED strings.
Dunser et al., US 2015/0373811 A1: LED module identification during start-up that is deactivated when the supply reaches the forward voltage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
9/30/2026
