DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 12/01/2025. In virtue of this request:
Claims 2-33 were previously canceled;
Claims 37-51 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1 and 34-51 are pending;
Examiner Notes: Claim Status Indicator for claims 44 and 49 is indicated as “Previously Presented” which appears to be an inadvertent error, as applicant has indicated in the response that the claim is amended, and the claim includes amendments; therefore, the examiner is treating the claims as “Currently Amended”
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 Objections
The objection to claims 37-51 is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims 37 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claims.
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.
The rejection to claims 50-51 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is maintained, as the applicant did not amend the claim to address the claim rejection.
Regarding claim 50, the claim recites “said first channel has a peak wavelength from 410 to 430 nm” which renders the claim indefinite, as the previous range recited in claim 1 for first channel is 380-420 nm.
Regarding claim 51, the claim is rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 50, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claims 36-45 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.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites “said first and second modes” which renders the claim indefinite as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 37-38 and 43, the claim recites “said white light” which renders the claim indefinite as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 38-41, the claim recites “said desired mode” which renders the claim indefinite as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 39-42 and 44, the claims are rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 38 and 43, respectively, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The rejection to claims 50-51 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is maintained, as the applicant did not amend the claim to address the claim rejection.
Regarding claim 50, the claim recites “said first channel has a peak wavelength from 410 to 430 nm” which renders the claim indefinite which fails to further limit the previous range recited in claim 1 for first channel at a range between 380-420 nm.
Regarding claim 51, the claim is rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 50, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2012/0001555A1 hereinafter “Tu” in view of US10,420,184 hereinafter “Soler”
Regarding claim 1, Tu disclose a tunable lighting system (¶66L1: a lamp fixture [10]) comprising:
a plurality of channels (¶72L1-6: three groups of LEDs) comprising at least,
a second channel for emitting cyan light having a wavelength peak between 450 nm and 530 nm (¶68L1-6: the second group of LED illuminates a dominant wavelength of 460nm~475nm);
a third channel for emitting green light having a wavelength peak between 510 nm and 590 nm (¶67L1-6: the first group of LED having a phosphor emits a dominant wavelength 555~585 nm);
a fourth channel for emitting red light having a wavelength peak between 510 nm and 780 nm (¶68L1-3: the third group of LED includes red LEDs having a dominant wavelength 600~635nm); and
a multichannel driver for driving a selection of said plurality of channels (¶72L6-8: element [50] comprises an electronic device for adjusting the current provided by the constant current source), said multichannel driver is configured to drive each channel independently (¶72L4-6: the groups of LED are driven separately, with adjustable constant current sources) such that said light system emits an emitted light with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) of at least 85 over a with a correlate color temperature (CCT) range greater than 3000K. (¶45L1-4: the lighting apparatus is tunable to achieve a Ra>90 at CCT in a range of 2700K~6500K)
Tu does not explicitly disclose:
a first channel for emitting violet light and having a wavelength peak between 380 nm and 420 nm
Soler discloses a lighting fixture with multiple channel of LEDs (Col.3L39-44: a lighting fixture has a first LED channel and a second LED channel) wherein
a first channel for emitting violet light and having a wavelength peak between 380 nm and about 420 nm (Col.3L42-44: a second LED channel that emits a second spectrum comprising a wavelength peak in a range from 370 nm to 410 nm)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the lamp fixture disclosed by Tu to include the LED channel emitting the light with peak wavelength range of 370 nm to 410 nm as disclosed by Soler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the additional channel allows the lighting system to adjust the OPN5/OPN4 ratio of lux to a melanopic lux ratio (Col.6 L34-54), which will help simulate lighting for according to circadian rhythm of the user. (Co.2L16-47)
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the channel emitting white light (Col.3L41-42: a first LED channel that emits a white light) disclosed by Soler to include the multiple LED channel emitting white light disclosed by Tu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the system disclosed by Tu will allow Soler to modify the Ra value and CCT of the emitted white light, thus giving the lighting fixture more range of colors to emit.
Regarding claim 48, Tu/Soler discloses the tunable lighting system of claim 1, wherein
said first, second, third and fourth channels are LEDS. (Tu ¶72L1-6: three groups of LEDs; Soler Col.3L39-44: a lighting fixture has a first LED channel and a second LED channel)
Regarding claim 49, Tu/Soler discloses the lighting system of claim 1, wherein
said lighting system is a lamp. (Tu ¶66L1: a lamp fixture [10]; Soler Col.3L39-44: a lighting fixture)
Regarding claim 50, Tu/Soler discloses the lighting system of claim 1,
Tu/Soler does not explicitly disclose:
said first channel has a peak wavelength from 410 to 430nm. (Col.3L42-44: a second LED channel that emits a second spectrum comprising a wavelength peak in a range from 370 nm to 410 nm)
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because both prior art has recognized that the selection of the dominant wavelength is a result effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu/Soler in view of US2013/0002157A1 hereinafter “Van”
Regarding claim 46, Tu/Soler discloses the tunable lighting system of claim 1,
Tu/Soler does not explicitly disclose:
said third channel is unsaturated.
Van discloses a lighting device wherein the strings of LEDs emit an unsaturated light. (¶11L1-3: LED that emit unsaturated light)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to utilize the LED disclosed by Van to emit unsaturated light in the lighting device disclosed by Tu/Soler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the LED are known in the art as equivalent and may be substitute.
Regarding claim 47, Tu/Soler discloses the tunable lighting system of claim 1,
Tu/Soler does not explicitly disclose:
said fourth channel is unsaturated.
Van discloses a lighting device wherein the strings of LEDs emit an unsaturated light. (¶11L1-3: LED that emit unsaturated light)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to utilize the LED disclosed by Van to emit unsaturated light in the lighting device disclosed by Tu/Soler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the LED are known in the art as equivalent and may be substitute.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu/Soler in view of US2019/0219234A1 hereinafter “Soer”
Regarding claim 51, Tu/Soler discloses the tunable lighting system of claim 50,
Tu/Soler does not explicitly disclose:
said first channel has a peak wavelength of 420 nm.
Soer discloses a system having melanopic spectral content wherein the system uses a violet light source having a peak wavelength of 410-420nm (¶5L1-7)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to utilize the violet LED disclosed by Soer to replace the LED having peak of 370nm-410nm disclosed by Soler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the LED are known in the art as equivalent and may be substitute and to provide more wavelength in the melanopic range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding claim 50-51, applicant indicated the claims were amended to overcome the rejection, while the suggest amendment in the remarks would overcome the indefinite rejection, the claim did not include said amendment; thus the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argued Tu and Solder individually do not teach the claim architecture, which the examiner acknowledges, thus the rejection is an obviousness rejection.
In this instance, Tu discloses a lighting apparatus with first/second and third group of emitters and together is driven individually to achieve a desire CCT and total flux output; Soler further provides a lighting system with a first LED channel that provides white light, and a second LED channel for providing biologically-tailored light.
Therefore, the combination of prior art may be made in two separate ways, it can either be to modify the lighting system disclosed by Tu to incorporate the second LED channel providing biologically-tailored light disclosed by Soler or to modify the lighting system disclosed by Soler to replace the first LED channel providing white light with the three channel lighting system disclosed by Tu.
In the former combination, this allows the lighting system of Tu to provide additional lighting output to simulate circadian rhythm of the user, in the latter combination, this allows the lighting system of Soler to achieve higher adjustability of the white light seen by the user to include more CCT and Ra values.
Applicant further argued the prosed combination is not properly support, specifically neither Tu nor Sole suggest adding a violet channel as claimed maintained both high CRI >85 and CCT range >3000 K.
The examiner disagrees, Col.17 L45-50 of Soler discloses the lighting system is capable of emitting output of 4000K daytime spectrum with CRI=86; thus there is a reasonable expectation that the claimed CCT and CRI are achievable.
Applicant’s last argument revolves around “Results Effective Variable” reasoning being misapplied and claimed configuration produces non obvious performance effect; however, the examiner did not rely upon said motivation for combination for claim 1.
Upon further consideration, the arrangement of driving in a first mode a combination of first, second and fourth channel to emit a relatively higher EML light as compared to a second mode, appears to be an specific arraignment that requires further consideration than just Results Effective Variable, thus prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844