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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 08 December 2025. Claims 1-7 and 10-26 are pending in the instant application where claim 1 has been amended, claims 25-26 are newly added, claims 10-24 have been withdrawn due to restriction, and claims 8-9 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 4 – page 3 paragraph 2) that Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger, and specifically Seiger, does not describe teach or suggest “wherein the processor is configured to receive an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object based on the triangulated location”, this newly added limitation is addressed in the rejections below via a revised interpretation of Seiger.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “illumination elements” on lines 2-3 and 5 which uses a generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitation “illumination element” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to “a light emitting diode (LED) [or] lasers, liquid-crystal displays, e-ink displays, and the like” (applicant’s specification [0047]), and equivalent thereof.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26, the claim recites the limitation “the expected size of a human hand”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the expected size has been given antecedence only for a two-dimensional area of an object, and not for a human hand. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any expected size of a human hand will read on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 7, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0110584 A1 by Patrick Joseph Campbell (“Campbell”) in view of US 2015/0184997 A1 by Patrick Joseph Campbell (“Joseph”), and further in view of US 11,057,590 B2 by Alex Seiger et al. (“Seiger”).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses a sensor device comprising: an elongate frame (Campbell fig. 2G label 219; flexible circuit strip 218 is mounted on a shelf 219 [elongate frame]); a plurality of distance sensors equally spaced and fixed to the elongate frame (Campbell [0040]; fig. 1A shows a transmitter 101 and receiver 105, where the distance to an object is obtained by the receiver 105 [distance sensor]; additionally, fig. 1B shows a detection array with different portions detecting light from an object 109; [0045] and fig. 2B shows a configuration of a plurality of sensor groups 205 (and therefore a plurality of distance sensors); [0050] and fig. 2G shows an embodiment of the sensor groups mounted onto the shelf 219 [mounted onto the elongate frame]; [0048] the flexible circuit strip 218 is mounted on the various shelves via adhesive backing [sensors fixed to the elongate frame]; fig. 2E shows a more detailed view of the flexible circuit strip, where each sensor group is shown as being equally spaced; while Campbell does not explicitly say the sensor groups are equally spaced, based on the image it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to conclude the spacing of sensors would be equal; having unequal spacing of distance sensors may result in sensing zones outside an operative range of a sensor or sensor groups - Campbell [0044]); the plurality of distance sensors each having a sensor face, wherein the sensor faces cumulatively define a sensor plane (annotated fig. 2A of Campbell below shows a sensor plane which is defined by a line tangent to the face of the receivers 105 [distance sensors], from which object distances are sensed (see object 203); each distance sensor has a sensor face defined by the boundary of the receiver 105; the annotated fig. 2A shows the sensor plane cumulatively defined by the sensor face of each receiver, at a point perpendicular to the axis of the adhesive backing) wherein each of the plurality of distance sensors is configured to sense an object distance outwardly from the sensor plane (Campbell [0040]; distance to an object 103 is sensed by the receiver 105 for the single sensor case; each sensor group 205 of fig. 2B has a receiving portion [receiver 105] for sensing the distance to an object (shown pictorially in fig. 2A for object 203); and a processor in data communication with each of the plurality of distance sensors, wherein the processor is configured to triangulate a location of an object outwardly from the sensor plane (Campbell [0048]; fig. 2E shows flexible circuit strip 211 backed with adhesive is in electrical connection to an electromagnetic signal processor; fig. 2F shows the trace to the electromagnetic signal processor 217 from the plurality of distance sensors; while the electromagnetic signal processor 217 is not explicitly shown in fig. 2G, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fig. 2G is merely a different orientation of mounting of the flexible circuit strip, and is still in electrical connection with the processor 217; [0043] principle of operation for the sensors is triangulation, which is also illustrated in fig. 1B (disclosed by [0041])).
Campbell is silent to wherein the processor is configured to approximate a two-dimensional area of an object in an object plane parallel to the sensor plane.
However, Joseph does address this limitation. Campbell and Joseph are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of distance tracking and triangulation via emission and subsequent sensing.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Joseph discloses “wherein the processor is configured to approximate a size of a two-dimensional area of an object in an object plane parallel to the sensor plane” (Joseph [0064] discloses a two-dimensional sensing field is created by the sensors and the size, shape, position, and number of objects in the field of view is determined; an object sensed by the sensing field would necessarily be in an object plane (i.e. a plane defined by the object) and there exists an object plane parallel to the sensor plane of Campbell; [0064] sensors are connected to a computer [processor], such that the processor is detecting the position, size, shape, etc. of the object [i.e. approximating a size of an object]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the size and shape of the object detected by the sensors and processor as reading on an approximated two-dimensional area of the object, since in detecting the size and shape, the processor inherently approximates a two-dimensional area of the object in producing the size and shape data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell to incorporate wherein the processor is configured to approximate a two-dimensional area of an object in an object plane parallel to the sensor plane as suggested by Joseph for the advantage of improved object resolution, since fine features are accessible and able to be sensed appropriately (Joseph [0065]).
Campbell when modified by Joseph is silent to wherein the processor is configured to receive an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object based on the triangulated location, compare the approximate size of the two-dimensional area to the expected size of the two-dimensional area and generate an error signal when the approximated size of the two-dimensional area does not match the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object.
However, Seiger does address this limitation. Campbell, Joseph, and Seiger are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of object tracking and triangulation via emission and subsequent sensing.
Seiger discloses “wherein the processor is configured to receive an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object” (Sieger col 7 ll. 63 – col 8 ll. 1-14 discloses an image processing CPU 122 which is used to detect presence of packages [i.e. an object having a two-dimensional area]; the size of the package is measured by a camera system which determines (an approximated) size of the package; an expected size of the area of the object has been provided when the barcode of the package was scanned (col 3 ll. 46-50 provides package identification information as including dimensions [two-dimensional size]), and the barcode scan itself is described in col 7 ll. 51-62) “based on the triangulated location” (Sieger has been cited to disclose the processor receiving an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object; under MPEP §2114 II., “apparatus claims cover what a device is and not what a device does” – in this case, the processor is capable of receiving an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object, and the recitation that the expected size be “based on the triangulated location” of the object is a recitation of the manner of operating the device, instead of a structural limitation limiting the device itself), “compare the approximate size of the two-dimensional area to an expected size of the two-dimensional area” (Sieger col 7 ll. 63 – col 8 ll. 1-14 discloses that the size of the package measured by image-processing CPI via cameras 118 is compared with expected package dimensions as read from the barcode [expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object]) “and generate an error signal when the approximated size of the two-dimensional area does not match the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object” (Seiger col 11 ll. 22-47 discloses a variety of situations which will cause warnings/errors, etc.; in a case where the CPU 122 recognizes the existence of a loaded package but there is no “match of the loaded package to a scanned package” will issue visual/auditory warning to users, central servers, etc.; in the case of a missing package where one is expected, the approximated size of the two-dimensional area of the object does not match the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object, and thus an error signal is generated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell in view of Joseph to incorporate wherein the processor is configured to receive an expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object based on the triangulated location, compare the approximate size of the two-dimensional area to the expected size of the two-dimensional area and generate an error signal when the approximated size of the two-dimensional area does not match the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object as suggested by Seiger for the advantage of suggesting remedial action for a driver or user to take when a warning is generated regarding a missing expected package, quickly addressing incorrect loading location of a package, or the theft of a package (Seiger col 11 ll. 22-47).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger discloses the device of claim 1, and Campbell further teaches the device further comprising a notification device, wherein the processor is in operative communication with the notification device (Campbell [0048] and fig. 2E shows the flexible circuit strip, where sensors are mounted at fixed positions; examiner interprets the flexible circuit strip and the associated sensors mounted on top as reading on a “notification device”, where the notification device [flexible circuit strip with sensors] is in operative communication with the processor (seen by the electrical connections which feed to the processor)).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger discloses the device of claim 2, and Campbell further teaches the device of claim 2, the notification device comprising: a plurality of illumination elements arranged along the elongate frame (Campbell [0040] and fig. 1A; where the distance sensors were mapped as the receivers 105, the plurality of illumination elements are disclosed as transmitters 101; additionally, the emitter for the embodiment in fig. 1B is shown emitting a light beam towards objects 109 and 112 [plurality of illumination units, each sensing the different objects]; fig. 2G shows the sensor groups (and therefore the illumination elements) are arranged along the elongate frame [shelf 219] – see claim 1 above for equivalent mapping); where each of the plurality of illumination elements are configured to selectively illuminate a beam of light outwardly from the frame (Campbell fig. 2A and [0040]; transmitters 101 creates beam of infrared radiation 102 [beam of light] outwardly from the frame; [0061] discloses that readings may be taken where the emitter of sensors [illumination element] is alternating between on and off – i.e. is selectively illuminated); wherein the processor is configured to selectively illuminate an individual illumination element of the plurality of illumination elements (Campbell [0007]; subject matter of Campbell can be implemented by the processor of a computer; [0061] discloses that readings may be taken where the emitter of sensors [illumination element] is alternating between on and off – i.e. is selectively illuminated, therefore since the processor may implement the subject matter of Campbell, the processor would initiate the emitter of the sensors alternating between on an off).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger discloses the device of claim 1. Campbell is silent to the device of claim 1, further comprising a releasable electrical interface towards a first elongate end of the sensor device and a mating electrical interface towards an opposite elongate end of the sensor device, wherein the releasable electrical interface and the mating electrical interface have structures capable of mating.
However, Joseph does address this limitation.
Joseph discloses the device of claim 1, “further comprising a releasable electrical interface towards a first elongate end of the sensor device and a mating electrical interface towards an opposite elongate end of the sensor device, wherein the releasable electrical interface and the mating electrical interface have structures capable of mating” (Joseph figs. 3A, 3C, and [0026] disclose sensor segments that are equivalent to the distance sensors of Campbell, where signals are receivable by the receiving portion 204, shown in fig. 2; fig 3A shows interconnected sensor segments with a male connector 206 [releasable electrical interface] at one end, and a female connector 208 [mating electrical interface] at the opposing end, and both 206/208 comprise structures capable of mating; the sensor segments detached are shown in fig. 3C prior to assembly; the assembly of sensor segments 200 shown in fig. 3A, are equivalent to the flexible circuit strip with sensor groups of Campbell, where the male connector 206 would be towards a first elongate end [shelf end], and female connector 208 would be towards an opposite elongate end [shelf end opposite]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell to incorporate a releasable electrical interface towards a first elongate end of the sensor device and a mating electrical interface towards an opposite elongate end of the sensor device, wherein the releasable electrical interface and the mating electrical interface have structures capable of mating as suggested by Joseph for the advantage of a minimization of form factor due to the modular nature of the sensor segments, allowing for efficient installation regardless of the geometry or layout of the environment being sensed (Joseph [0003]).
Regarding claim 25, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, and Campbell further teaches the device wherein the triangulated location is adjacent to an opening of a bin (Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger have disclosed a sensor device capable of determining a triangulated location of an object under investigation and obtaining an expected size of a two-dimensional area of the object; the triangulated location being adjacent to an opening of a bin is drawn to a manner of operating the device; as with claim 1 under MPEP §2114 II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus from the prior art and therefore the triangulated location being adjacent to an opening of a bin does not make a contribution over Campbell in view of Joseph and Sieger), and wherein the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object is based on the expected size of an expected object associated with the bin (Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger have disclosed a sensor device capable of receiving an expected size of a two-dimensional area of an object having been triangulated; under MPEP §2115, the material or article worked upon [by an apparatus] does not limit apparatus claims – in this case, requiring the expected size of the two dimensional area of an object be based on the expected size of an expected object associated with the bin is a recitation directed to the material or article worked upon by the apparatus; in this case, the material or article is the object being sensed by the sensor device, and the expected size thereof; therefore, this limitation does not limit the apparatus and does not make a contribution over Campbell in view of Joseph and Sieger).
Regarding claim 26, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, and Campbell further teaches the device wherein the triangulated location is adjacent to an opening of a bin (Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger have disclosed a sensor device capable of determining a triangulated location of an object under investigation and obtaining an expected size of a two-dimensional area of the object; the triangulated location being adjacent to an opening of a bin is drawn to a manner of operating the device; as with claim 1 under MPEP §2114 II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus from the prior art and therefore the triangulated location being adjacent to an opening of a bin does not make a contribution over Campbell in view of Joseph and Sieger), and wherein the expected size of the two-dimensional area of the object is the expected size of a human hand and an expected object associated with the bin (as with the preceding claim, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Sieger have disclosed a sensor device capable of receiving an expected size of a two-dimensional area of an object having been triangulated; under MPEP §2115, the material or article worked upon [by an apparatus] does not limit apparatus claims – in this case, requiring the expected size of the two dimensional area of an object be based on the expected size of a human hand an expected object associated with the bin is a recitation directed to the material or article worked upon by the apparatus; in this case, the material or article is the object being sensed by the sensor device, and the expected size thereof; therefore, this limitation does not limit the apparatus and does not make a contribution over Campbell in view of Joseph and Sieger).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Joseph, in view of Seiger, and further in view of US 2021/0112647 A1 by Zane Coleman (“Coleman”).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger discloses the device of claim 3. Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger is silent to the device of claim 3, further comprising wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a multi-color light emitting diode.
However, Coleman does address this limitation. Campbell, Joseph, Seiger, and Coleman are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of specialized light emission devices for investigating an external environment, including depth, distance, or dimensional analysis.
Coleman discloses the device of claim 3, “further comprising wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a multi-color light emitting diode” (Coleman fig. 4 label 402 and [0287]; label 402 is disclosed as a collection of angularly varying light emitting devices (AVLED), where each A01 – A0N are individual AVLED’s; [0034] discloses the AVLED’s light source (i.e. each A01-A0N) can be picked from the expansive list, which includes a red, green, blue, and white micro-LED array [multi-color LED], among other combinations of colors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell in view of Joseph and Seiger to incorporate wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a multi-color light emitting diode as suggested by Coleman for the advantage of physical compactness of the illumination element from LEDs (Coleman [0084]), while obtaining freedom with color emission choice and keeping fabrication and operating costs low.
Regarding claim 5, Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger discloses the device of claim 3. Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger is silent to the device of claim 3, further comprising wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes.
However, Coleman does address this limitation.
Coleman discloses the device of claim 3, further comprising “wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes” (Coleman fig. 4 label 402 and [0287]; label 402 is disclosed as a collection of angularly varying light emitting devices (AVLED), where each A01 – A0N are individual AVLED’s; [0034] discloses the AVLED’s light source (i.e. each A01-A0N) can be picked from the expansive list in [0034], which includes a red, green, blue, and white micro-LED array [multi-color LED], among other combinations of colors; a red, green, blue, and white (among other combinations) micro-LED array is comprised of a plurality of light emitting diodes (i.e. the red, green, blue, etc.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell in view of Joseph and Seiger to incorporate wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes as suggested by Coleman for the advantage of physical compactness of the illumination element from LEDs (Coleman [0084]), while obtaining freedom with color emission choice and keeping fabrication and operating costs low.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell when modified by Joseph, Seiger, and Coleman discloses the device of claim 5. Campbell when modified by Joseph and Seiger is silent to the device of claim 5 further comprising wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a light emitting diode having a first color and a light emitting diode having a second color.
However, Coleman does address this limitation.
Coleman discloses the device of claim 5 further comprising “wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a light emitting diode having a first color and a light emitting diode having a second color” (Coleman [0034] discloses the AVLED’s light source (i.e. each A01-A0N) can be picked from the expansive list in [0034], which includes a grouping of a red, green, and blue micro-LED array with a white micro-LED array; that combination of red/green/blue LED array with a white micro-LED array reads on a diode having a first color and a diode having a second color).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Campbell in view of Joseph and Seiger to incorporate wherein each of the plurality of illumination elements comprises a light emitting diode having a first color and a light emitting diode having a second color as suggested by Coleman for the advantage of physical compactness of the illumination element from LEDs (Coleman [0084]), while obtaining freedom with color emission choice and keeping fabrication and operating costs low.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 6,466,305 B1 by Richard McBain
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877