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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1,3,5,6,15,20,21 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venk et al (PG Pub 20160327223 A1), a reference cited by Applicants, Marcus (PG Pub 2002/0110000 A1), Moier (PG Pub 20096/0296382 A1), and Imai et al (PG Pub 2013/0087367 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Venk teaches a flexible light strip comprising: a flexible carrier (121, figs. 22-24 and 28, paragraphs [0005][0007]) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; and a plurality of solid state lighting units (LEDs “L”, figs. 22-24 and 28) on the first surface of the flexible carrier and spaced along a length of the flexible carrier in a first direction, wherein the flexible carrier has a width that extends in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and wherein each of the plurality of solid state lighting units is located above the first surface in a third direction (vertical direction) that is orthogonal to the first and second directions, wherein the flexible carrier comprises: a respective buffer area (see fig. 28 attached below, specifically the space between two adjacent LEDs) between each of the plurality of solid state lighting units, the respective buffer area extending along a width (fig. 21 and 28) of the flexible carrier.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Venk does not teach the plurality of solid state lighting units to be mechanically coupled to the first surface of the flexible carrier, and Venk does not show in the drawings a first conductive rail attached and electrically coupled to the plurality of solid state lighting units, a second conductive rail, parallel to the first conductive rail, and attached and electrically coupled to the multiple solid state lighting units.
In the same field of endeavor, Marcus teaches a plurality of solid state lighting units mechanically coupled (soldered, paragraph [0007]) to the first surface of a carrier, a first conductive rail attached (5, fig. 3, rails would have extended along fold lines 14 in Venk) and electrically coupled to the plurality of solid state lighting units, a second conductive rail (6), parallel to the first conductive rail, and attached and electrically coupled to the plurality of solid state lighting units, for the known benefit of providing power to the solid state lightning units.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mechanically couple the plurality of solid state lighting units to the first surface of the carrier and to include a first conductive rail attached and electrically coupled to the plurality of solid state lighting units, a second conductive rail, parallel to the first conductive rail, and attached and electrically coupled to the plurality of solid state lighting units for the known benefit of providing power to the solid state lightning units.
Venk in view of Marcus teaches “each of the multiple buffer areas extending along a width of the flexible carrier from the first conductive rail to the second conductive rail”.
Venk does not teach the carrier to be a flexible foil.
In the same field of endeavor, Moier teaches a carrier to be a flexible foil for the benefits of providing a substrate with good flexibility and heat dissipation (paragraph [0021]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the carrier a flexible foil for the benefits of providing a substrate with good flexibility and heat dissipation.
Venk does not teach the rails to be massive wires.
In the same field of endeavor, Imai teaches massive wires (thick wiring pattern 21, paragraph [0102]) provides a benefit of providing heat conduction (paragraph [0102]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the rails massive wires for a benefit of providing heat conduction.
The modified Venk’s device in view of the teachings of Marcus, Maier, and Imai would have allowed the device to function as claimed: wherein, in each respective buffer area, each of the massive wires includes a three-dimensional buckling portion formed as a gable roof shaped bend in the third direction that defines a roof ridge, and wherein compression and expansion of the gable roof shaped bend enables the massive wires to be bendable in the second direction, because Venk teaches the device to be flexible (bent through plastic deformation, paragraph [0054]; springback, paragraphs [0064][0065][0069], flexible, paragraph [0039]). Venk teaches that the entire substrate is so flexible that it can be rolled up (paragraph [0146]). Venk further teaches advantages of the device being flexible such as broad range of optical configuration (paragraph [0011]), good design flexibility and application (paragraphs [0005][0011]), reduced cost by rolls and reels packaging (paragraph [0164]). Thus, the skilled in the art would have made the rails to be ridged and bents as claimed to achieve the benefits of obtaining broad range of optical configuration and good design flexibility and application, and of reduced cost by rolls and reels packaging.
Regarding claim 3, Venk teaches the flexible light strip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the respective buffer area between each of the plurality of solid state lighting units is configure to deform by buckling (bendable, figs. 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 5, Venk teaches the flexible light strip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the respective buffer area between each of the plurality of solid state lighting units is shaped as a gable roof comprising two roof sections sloping in opposite directions and located such that highest edges meet to form a roof ridge (figs. 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 6, Venk teaches the light strip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the respective buffer area between each of the plurality of solid state lighting units are made of a ductile material (plastic, paragraph [0054] that springs back, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, Venk does not teach a roof angle at the roof ridge is 90 degrees in a non-bended state of the light strip along a length of the light strip.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a roof angle at the roof ridge to be any degree, including 90 degrees, in a non-bended state of the light strip along a length of the light strip, for the benefit of broadening the application field of the device (paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a roof angle at the roof ridge to be any degree, including 90 degrees, in a non-bended state of the light strip along a length of the light strip, for the benefit of broadening the application field of the device.
The phrase “non-bended state” does not seem to mean “never has been bent”. Paragraph [0022] of the application PG Pub teaches “a roof angle at the roof ridge provided by the two roof sections is essentially 90 degree in a non-bended state of the light strip along its length. This will ensure a symmetric bending of the flexible foil since this roof angle is present at the middle of the width of the flexible foil when being bended.” Also, claim 5, from which claim 15 depends, teaches the roof angle is “shaped”. Thus, “non-bended state” is understood to mean a force, such as bending, is used form the claimed device into the “non-bended state”. Although Venk teaches bending the device into the roof angle, it reads on the current claim in view of the specification. “The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.
Regarding claim 20, Marcus teaches the flexible light strip as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the at least first conductive rail or the second conductive rail defines one edge of the flexible carrier and the other one of the first conductive rail or the second conductive rail defines opposite edge of the flexible carrier (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Marcus does not teach the at least the first conductive rail and the second conductive rail are configured for coupling to receive a drive current for the plurality of solid state lighting units.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try to configure at least the first conductive rail and the second conductive rail for coupling to receive a drive current, as well as a drive voltage, for the multiple solid state lighting units, for the known benefit of powering the solid state lighting units with either current or voltage. "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3,5,6,15,20,21 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that massive wires in Imai are incompatible with flexible lighting device of Venk. Specifically, Applicant argues that (second paragraph, page 11)
Further, the Office Action does not address the incompatibility that Applicant previously raised and that remains central here: Venk emphasizes rollability and flexible strip packaging/handling, while "massive wires" materially increase bending stiffness and are directly at odds with the thin, flexible construction that makes Venk rollable in the first place. In this context, the missing teaching in the art is not merely the desirability of flexibility. Rather it is the specific mechanical solution that allows a strip to remain bendable across its width while employing "massive" conductors. Claim 1 recites that solution: massive conductor rails that are themselves formed with gable-roof-shaped bends (i.e., localized three-dimensional ridge/buckling features) in buffer regions between lighting units, where those bends enable the massive rails to bend in the width direction. The cited art does not disclose or suggest this structure or this function. The Office Action's statement that the combination "would have allowed the device to function as claimed" is therefore unsupported.
In response, Applicant has not disclosed any features that are special about the wires, mechanically or otherwise, other than that they are “massive” and flexible. According to the disclosure, they (31, fig. 1) simply bend to the shape—“gable-roof-shaped”—of the carrier (3) that they are attached to because they are flexible. There is nothing novel or inventive about using flexible wires that are “massive” and discover/show that they can bend to gable-roof-shaped. A main feature of Venk’s device is flexibility (bent through plastic deformation, paragraph [0054]; springback, paragraphs [0064][0065][0069], flexible, paragraph [0039]). Venk teaches that the entire substrate is so flexible that it can be rolled up (paragraph [0146]). Venk further teaches advantages of the device being flexible such as broad range of optical configuration (paragraph [0011]), good design flexibility and application (paragraphs [0005][0011]), reduced cost by rolls and reels packaging (paragraph [0164]). Thus, the skilled in the art would have made the first and second rails flexible to retain the benefits that Venk’s device provide: broad range of optical configuration (paragraph [0011]), good design flexibility and application (paragraphs [0005][0011]), reduced cost by rolls and reels packaging. Applicant has to agree that wires being “massive” can still be flexible, otherwise their device would be inoperable as claimed. Imai teaches thick wires increases heat dissipation (paragraph [0102]). Imai also teaches that improving heat conduction from heat-generating devices such as light emitting diodes (LEDs) to maintain luminous efficiency (paragraph [0005]). Thus, the modified Venk’s device in view of the teachings of Marcus, Maier, and Imai would have allowed the device to function as claimed: wherein, in each respective buffer area, each of the massive wires includes a three-dimensional buckling portion formed as a gable roof shaped bend in the third direction that defines a roof ridge, and wherein compression and expansion of the gable roof shaped bend enables the massive wires to be bendable in the second direction, for the benefits of achieving a broad range of optical configuration (paragraph [0011] of Venk), good design flexibility and application (paragraphs [0005][0011] of Venk), reduced cost by rolls and reels packaging (Venk), and maintaining luminous efficiency (paragraph [0005] of Imai).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached on 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights