Another great difference found is that the US patent does not disclose or suggest a method of detecting type of lighting device technology, that is, said US patent can not determine if the lighting device is an incandescent
halogen device (incandescent
bulb) or a compact fluorescent device (CFL) or a light-emitting
diode (LED) device.
Also, said US patent fails to disclose or suggest a method of detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, i.e., said US patent can not determine if an intelligent device is consuming more current than it should and probably the lighting device is in a state of deterioration.
Also, said US application fails to disclose or suggest a method of detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, i.e., said US application can not determine whether an intelligent device is consuming more current than it should and probably the intelligent device is in a state of deterioration.
Another great difference found is that said US application does not disclose or suggest a method of detecting the type of lighting device technology, i.e., said US application can not determine whether the lighting device is an incandescent
halogen device (incandescent
bulb) or a compact fluorescent device (CFL) or a light-emitting
diode (LED) device.
As a last difference, said US patent fails to provide a method for determining the
energy consumption of an intelligent device, that is, the US application does not determine how much current, and therefore, how much power the lighting device is using.
Another great difference found is that said US patent fails to disclose or suggest a method of detecting the type of lighting device technology, that is, said US patent can not determine if the lighting device is an incandescent
halogen device (incandescent
bulb) or a compact fluorescent device (CFL) or a light-emitting
diode (LED) device.
Also, said US patent fails to disclose or suggest a method of detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, i.e., said US patent can not determine if an intelligent device is consuming more current than it should and whether said intelligent device is in a state of deterioration.
Although said US patent uses standard dimming techniques to control dimming of the lighting device, it fails to disclose or suggest that the detection of the most appropriate dimming mode for the intelligent device is through the analysis of the input
voltage signal (subsequently transformed to current signal) simultaneously in the two dimming
modes, trailing and leading mode, wherein said analysis is performed in a
single cycle of the
sine wave analyzed.
Likewise, said Japanese
Patent Application fails to disclose a method of detecting the technology type of the lighting device, nor a method of determining the
energy consumption of a lighting device, nor a method of detecting and selecting a dimming mode.
Likewise, said U.S. patent and application fail to disclose or suggest a method for detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, or a method for detecting the type of lighting device technology, or a method for determining the
power consumption of an intelligent device.
However, none of these documents mentions anything regarding the detection of the most appropriate dimming mode for the intelligent device by means of the analysis of the input voltage signal (subsequently transformed to the current signal) simultaneously in the two dimming
modes, trailing or leading mode, wherein said analysis is performed in a
single cycle of the
sine wave analyzed.
Also, said patent applications fail to disclose or suggest a method of detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, nor a method of detecting the type of lighting device technology, nor a method of determining
energy consumption of an intelligent device.
However, said U.S. patents do not disclose
data filtering to eliminate the
noise present in the voltage signal, wherein said filtering is comprised by an amplitude filtering, a
frequency filtering and a magnitude filtering.
Another major difference found is that said U.S. patents do not disclose or suggest a method for detecting the type of lighting device technology, nor a method of detecting irregular behavior in the operation of a lighting device, nor a method for selecting and detecting a dimming mode.
In turn, there is a
Patent Application Document WO 2009099082 A1 which, likewise, is focused on measuring the energy consumption of lighting devices; however, it fails to disclose the novel differences mentioned above.