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
Applicant's amendment filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 18 and 23 have been amended. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 18-19 and 23 are still pending in this application, with claim 18 being independent. The drawing objection set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 28 October 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment. The 112-rejection set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 28 October 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable VAN BOMMEL et al. (US 2023/0099125 A1, herein referred to as: Van Bommel), in view of Enomoto et al. (JP 2017191875 A, herein referred to as: Enomoto), and Heffels et al. (WO 2018087072 A1, herein referred to as: Heffels).
Regarding claim 18, Van Bommel teaches or suggests an LED strip (Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 6c, and 7b-7d), comprising at least one lighting device (Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 6c, and 7b-7d) comprising: a flexible transparent body (230, 260, 280, paragraphs [0012] and [0049]) that extends along a length direction of the lighting device (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3b), the flexible transparent body (230, 260, 280) comprising particles dispersed therein (paragraphs [0051]-[0056]); a flexible substrate (220, paragraph [0044]), embedded in the flexible transparent body (as shown in Fig. 5), and extending along a length direction of the lighting device (as shown in Fig. 3b), wherein: the flexible substrate (220) separates the flexible transparent body (230, 260, 280) into a first portion (230 and the upper portion of 280) that has a first concentration of the particles (within 280) and a second portion (260 and the lower portion of 280, as described in paragraphs [0051]-[0056] and as shown in Fig. 5) that has a second concentration of the particles (within 280, as described in paragraphs [0051]-[0056] and as shown in Fig. 5), a first surface (an upper surface of 220) of the flexible substrate (220) faces the first portion (as shown in Fig. 5), a second surface (a lower surface opposite said upper surface) of the flexible substrate (220) faces the second portion (as shown in Fig. 5), and the flexible substrate (220) is at least semi-transparent (as described in paragraphs [0014] and [0044]); and at least two light emitting elements (210) arranged on the first surface of the flexible substrate along the length direction of the lighting device (as shown in Figs. 3b and 7b-7d) and configured to emit a main portion of its light emission toward the first portion (the portion above 220) of the flexible transparent body (as shown in Fig. 5) and a second portion of its light emission through the flexible substrate (as shown in Fig. 6c) such that a color and an intensity of light emitted through an outer surface of the flexible transparent body (as shown in Fig. 6c) is uniform (as shown in Fig. 6c, and as described in paragraph [0057]).
Van Bommel does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 5, that the first concentration is higher than the second concentration.
Van Bommel alternatively teaches or suggests, in the embodiments described in paragraphs [0024] and [0051], the first concentration is higher than the second concentration (“…the difference in reflectivity of the first and second elongated light scattering layers may for example be achieved by increasing the concentration of scattering particles in the first elongated light scattering layer compared to the second elongated light scattering layer and/or by increasing the thickness of the first elongated light scattering layer compared to the second elongated light scattering layer and/or by using scattering particles with higher reflectivity in the first elongated light scattering layer compared to the second elongated light scattering layer…” as described in paragraph [0024] and “…The density and/or material comprising the scattering particles 242 of the first scattering layer 240 is higher compared to the scattering particles 252 of the second scattering layer 250. This may ensure an increase in the average number of scattering events lights may encounter in the first scattering layer 240 compared to that of the second scattering layer 250. It is additionally noted that in the embodiment of FIGS. 4b, S1 and S2 may be uniform…,” as described in paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Van Bommel and incorporated the teachings of the first concentration is higher than the second concentration, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Van Bommel, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or the appearance/quality of the device (i.e. by providing the desired reflectance to the first and second portions of the flexible transparent body, in the instant case, to produce an overall uniform light emission).
The combined teachings of Van Bommel teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the particles dispersed therein comprise both phosphor particles and light-scattering particles, the first concentration of particles include both the phosphor particles and the light-scattering particles, and the second concentration of particles include both the phosphor particles and the light-scattering particles.
Enomoto teaches or suggests (Fig. 20) said the particles dispersed therein comprise both phosphor particles (4) and light-scattering particles (8), the first concentration of particles (within 3a) include both the phosphor particles and the light-scattering particles (as shown in Fig. 20), and the second concentration of particles (within 3b) include both the phosphor particles (4) and the light-scattering particles (not shown, but described in the written description: “…as shown in FIG. 20, in the light emitting module 160 of the present embodiment, the concentration of the scattering agent 8 is different between the sealing portion upper portion 3a covering the front surface side of the substrate 1 and the sealing portion lower portion 3b covering the back surface side. The concentration is high at the upper part 3a and low at the sealing part lower part 3b. Moreover, the sealing part lower part 3b does not need to contain the scattering agent 8…” Thus, layer 3b need only have a low concentration of scattering particles 8, or in the alternative, none at all. Additionally, there are fewer phosphor particles depicted in Fig. 20 within 3b than in 3a, thus, as implied by the cited description and Fig. 20, layer 3b has a lower concentration of both phosphor particles and scattering particles, and produces a uniform output, as is also noted in the description: “…the sealing part upper part 3a to which the primary light from the light emitting element 2 is directly irradiated on the surface side of the substrate 1, and the sealing part lower part 3b to which the primary light and the secondary light reach by being scattered by the scattering agent 8, The light quantity balance can be made more uniform… Therefore, it is possible to obtain a light distribution characteristic such that the entire columnar light emitting module 160 emits light uniformly…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Van Bommel and incorporated the teachings of the particles dispersed therein comprise both phosphor particles and light-scattering particles, the first concentration of particles include both the phosphor particles and the light-scattering particles, and the second concentration of particles include both the phosphor particles and the light-scattering particles, such as taught or suggested by Enomoto, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance and/or the appearance/quality of the device (i.e. by providing an embodiment by which phosphor particles can be used to tailor the uniformity and/or color of light emitted from the device) and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (i.e. by providing a lighting device which can produce a uniform light output with fewer components or materials).
The combined teachings of Van Bommel and Enomoto teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a support structure comprising: a first support wall having a flat first inner reflective surface and a first outer surface opposite the first flat inner reflective surface, a second support wall opposite the first support wall and having a flat second inner reflective surface and a second outer surface opposite the flat first inner reflective surface, the flat first inner reflective surface facing, and parallel to, the flat second inner reflective surface, at least one mixing volume comprising a flexible transparent material enclosed by, and in contact with, both the flat first inner reflective surface and the flat second inner reflective surface, and a channel formed in the flexible transparent material; and a lighting device having a tube-shaped outer surface and two end surfaces, the lighting device disposed in the channel such that the mixing volume fully surrounds the tube-shaped outer surface of the lighting device.
Heffels teaches or suggests a support structure (Fig. 6) comprising: a first support wall (a left or right side of 20, on one side of the light exit opening 22) having a flat first inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6, forming an inner surface of 20 facing 10) and a first outer surface opposite the first flat inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6, forming an outer surface of 20), a second support wall opposite the first support wall (another of the left or right side of 20, on another side of the light exit opening 22) and having a flat second inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6, facing 10) and a second outer surface opposite the flat first inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6, forming an outer surface of 20), the flat first inner reflective surface facing, and parallel to, the flat second inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6), at least one mixing volume (21) comprising a flexible transparent material enclosed by, and in contact with, both the flat first inner reflective surface and the flat second inner reflective surface (as shown in Fig. 6, also see claim 14), and a channel formed in the flexible transparent material (the channel which is occupied by 10); and a lighting device (10) having a tube-shaped outer surface (as shown in Fig. 6) and two end surfaces (as shown in Fig. 6), the lighting device disposed in the channel such that the mixing volume fully surrounds the tube-shaped outer surface of the lighting device (as shown in Fig. 6, and as noted in the corresponding description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Van Bommel and incorporated the teachings of a support structure comprising: a first support wall having a flat first inner reflective surface and a first outer surface opposite the first flat inner reflective surface, a second support wall opposite the first support wall and having a flat second inner reflective surface and a second outer surface opposite the flat first inner reflective surface, the flat first inner reflective surface facing, and parallel to, the flat second inner reflective surface, at least one mixing volume comprising a flexible transparent material enclosed by, and in contact with, both the flat first inner reflective surface and the flat second inner reflective surface, and a channel formed in the flexible transparent material; and a lighting device having a tube-shaped outer surface and two end surfaces, the lighting device disposed in the channel such that the mixing volume fully surrounds the tube-shaped outer surface of the lighting device, such as taught or suggested by Heffels, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing the longevity of the device (e.g., by enclosing and protecting the lighting device therein).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings of Van Bommel, Enomoto, and Heffels teach or suggest (as modified in claim 18 above) the lighting device is arranged inside of the support structure such that the flexible substrate forms an angle of 00± 450 with at least one of the at least two opposing reflective surfaces (as shown in Fig. 6 of Heffels, i.e. 0 degrees a surface of 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record does not teach, or merely suggest, an optical separation member extending from the flat first inner reflective surface and the flat second inner reflective surface and towards the channel, wherein each of the optical separation members has a triangular-shaped cross section, as recited in combination with all of the limitations of claim 18 upon which claim 23 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875