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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 1-2, it is suggested that the limitation recites “A method for controlling a correlated color temperature dimming (CCT-dimming) curve for a lighting load” should be changed to --A method for controlling a correlated color temperature dimming (CCT-dimming) curve for a lighting load using at least one processor-- to make it clearer.
In claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that the limitation recites “receiving a command to adjust an intensity level of the lighting load” should be changed to --receiving, via a receiver, a command to adjust an intensity level of the lighting load-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawings.
In claim 1, line 5, it is suggested that the limitation recites “determining a commanded CCT value for the commanded intensity level” should be changed to --determining, via the at least one processor, a commanded CCT value for the commanded intensity level-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawings.
In claim 1, line 13, it is suggested that the limitation recites “controlling, via the at least one processor, a CCT value of the lighting load based on the commanded CCT value” should be changed to --controlling a CCT value of the lighting load based on the commanded CCT value-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawings.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, it is suggested that the limitation recites “A method for creating a correlated color temperature dimming (CCT-dimming) curve for a lighting load” should be changed to --A method for creating a correlated color temperature dimming (CCT-dimming) curve for a lighting load using at least one processor-- to make it clearer.
In claim 14, line 5, it is suggested that the limitation recites “receiving, via a user selection, a curve shape from a plurality of selectable curve shapes” should be changed to -- receiving, via the user selection, a curve shape from a plurality of selectable curve shapes-- to avoid antecedence basis.
In claim 14, line 6, it is suggested that the limitation recites “determining a bend value and a CCT range based on the selected curve shape” should be changed to –determining, via the at one processor, a bend value and a CCT range based on the selected curve shape-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawings.
In claim 14, line 10, it is suggested that the limitation recites “transmitting CCT-dimming curve data to a lighting device” should be changed to –transmitting, via a transmitter, CCT-dimming curve data to a lighting device-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawings.
Claims 2-13 and 15-28 are depending on claims 1 and 14, and are objected for the same reasons as stated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12418965 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the two sets of claims are only minor structural variations that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of person of ordinary skill are taken into consideration. The claim limitations of the U.S Patent No. 12418965 B2 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function.
Regarding claims 1-28, the limitations of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. The pending claims 1 and 14 use different vernacular than the patented claims 1 and 15 of U.S Patent No. 12418965 B2. And the dependent claims are also similar. One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claims are directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same. The principle differences are that the pending claims are broader in scope than the patented claims. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its structure is generally held to be within the skill of the art. They both are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claims 1-28 of pending application contains the same structures and capable perform the same function as claims 1-19 of U.S Patent No. 12418965 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-28 are allowable if the objections and the double patenting above are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights