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 02/20/2026. In virtue of this request:
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claim 5 was previously canceled;
Claim 1 is currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-16 are pending;
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 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 1, the claim recites “a radiation detecting semiconductor chip” on line 5 and “a radiation detecting semiconductor chip” on line 7, which renders the claim indefinite, as it presents improper antecedent basis, and unclear whether the two components are the same component or separate component.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-10, the claims are rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 1, as all dependent claims inherits the deficiencies of the based 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0359825A1 hereinafter “Hussell” in view of US2007/0040512A1 hereinafter “Jungwirth”
Regarding claim 1, Hussell discloses an optoelectronic component, with
at least one segment (¶31L9-11: emitter array includes a number of sloid-state light emitter (individually LED1 through LED16) (Note: a segment can comprise either each row of LED or each column of LED as shown in Fig.4), wherein
each segment comprises two or more radiation emitting semiconductor chips (as shown in Fig.4, LED1, LED5, LED9 and LED13 would be one segment) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation into a region (¶30L11-13: area lamp is capable of selectively illuminating different portion P1-P16; as shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4: LED1, LED5, LED9 and LED13 would illuminate portion P1, P5, P9 and P13 respectively)
each individual radiation emitting semiconductor chip of a segment is drivable independently of the other radiation emitting semiconductor chips of the segment (¶31L15-18: the one or more drive signals DS in combination with one or more control signals CS provide the primary power for operation of individual LEDs in the emitter array); and
the optoelectronic component has an electronic semiconductor chip comprising at least one of a control unit, an evaluation unit, or a drive unit, and which is electrically conductively connected to the at least one segment. (¶31L1-5: area lamp includes driver circuitry, control circuitry, sensor circuitry and communication circuitry)
Hussell does not expclitly disclose:
each segment is associated with a radiation detecting semiconductor chip configured to detect electromagnetic radiation from the region,
each segment includes a radiation detecting semiconductor chip configured to detect electromagnetic radiation from the region,
the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the region and received by the radiation detecting semiconductor chip is the radiation reflected in the region
Jungwirth discloses a luminaire system wherein
each segment is associated with a radiation detecting semiconductor chip configured to detect electromagnetic radiation from the region, each segment includes a radiation detecting semiconductor chip configured to detect electromagnetic radiation from the region, the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the region and received by the radiation detecting semiconductor chip is the radiation reflected in the region. (¶44L1-20: optical sensor system [60,70,80] can be configured to provide indication of total luminous flux of the light emitted by array [20, 30, 40])
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the LED array disclosed by Hussell by incorporating the optical sensor system to each LED as disclosed by Jungwirth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this information can be used in a feedback loop to prevent the appearance of visual flicker, for example during dimming operation. (Jungwirth ¶42L10-13)
Regarding claim 2, Hussell in view of Jungwirth hereinafter “Hussell/Jungwirth” discloses in Hussell the optoelectronic component according to claim 1, in which
at least one segment comprises a common carrier on which the radiation emitting semiconductor chips and the radiation detecting semiconductor chip are arranged. (¶39L1-26: the emitter array may be formed on the same semiconductor substrate)
Regarding claim 3, Hussell/Jungwirth discloses in Hussell optoelectronic component of claim 1
in which at least one segment comprises an optics, and the optics is arranged on the radiation emitting semiconductor chips and the radiation detecting semiconductor chip of a segment, or the optics is arranged on the radiation emitting semiconductor chips of a segment. (¶42L1-4: one or more optic elements (e.g., lenes) maybe provided on the area lamp as illustrated in Fig.9)
Regarding claim 4, Hussell/Jungwirth discloses optoelectronic component of claim 1
at least one segment comprises at least two optics,
one of the two optics is arranged on the radiation detecting semiconductor chip of a segment (Jungwirth ¶44L1-20 each optical sensor may be equipped with a filter; the optical filter can be dyed glass), and
the other of the two optics is arranged on the radiation emitting semiconductor chips of a segment (Hussell ¶42L1-4: one or more optic elements (e.g., lenes) maybe provided on the area lamp as illustrated in Fig.9).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussell/Jungwirth in view of US2017/0130909A1 hereinafter “Yeon”
Regarding claim 6, Hussell/Jungwirth discloses a method for driving at least one segment of the optoelectronic component according to claim 1 (as rejected in claim 1 above) with at least two segments
Hussell/Jungwirth does not explicitly disclose:
generating an optical signal in the region with a mobile device,
receiving the optical signal of the mobile device by the radiation detecting semiconductor chip associated with the region
driving one of the segments associated with the radiation detecting semiconductor chip dependent on the optical signal of the mobile device.
Yeon disclose a lighting system wherein the light source module uses light fidelity (Li-Fi) to control on and off functions and brightness of a light emitting apparatus (¶122L6-16) and that a mobile device can use visible light communication to communicate with the lighting device (¶148).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the LED array disclosed by Jones by incorporating visible light communication to control operation of the lighting apparatus as disclosed by Yeon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this enables the lights to be controlled remotely using existing circuitry of light detector.
Regarding claim 7, Hussell/Jungwirth in view of Yeon hereinafter “Hussell/Jungwirth/Yeon” discloses in Hussell the optoelectronic component according to claim 6, wherein
at least two regions are formed without overlapping in lateral directions. (as shown in Fig.3 for example)
Regarding claim 8, Hussell/Jungwirth/Yeon discloses in Hussell the optoelectronic component according to claim 6, wherein
the optoelectronic component comprises at least three segments (as shown in Fig.3 for example), and at least two of the regions are formed overlapping in lateral directions. (as shown in Fig.3 for example) (Note: since there is no detail regarding the regions, any combination of LED can be interpreted as a region or overlapping/non-overlapping)
Regarding claim 9, Hussell/Jungwirth/Yeon discloses in Yeon the optoelectronic component according to claim 6, wherein
the segment is driven dependent on the optical signal of the mobile device such that a luminance in the region is increased or that a luminance in the region is decreased. (¶122L8-10: light fidelity (Li-Fi) may control on/off functions and brightness of a light emitting apparatus)
Regarding claim 10, Hussell/Jungwirth/Yeon discloses according to claim 6, wherein
at least two segments of different optoelectronic components have two regions which overlap in lateral directions (as shown in Fig.3 for example of Hussell) (Note: since there is no detail regarding the regions, any combination of LED can be interpreted as a region or overlapping/non-overlapping), and
the segments of the different optoelectronic components are driven dependent on the optical signal. ( Yeon ¶122L8-10: light fidelity (Li-Fi) may control on/off functions and brightness of a light emitting apparatus)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 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 Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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 2845
Prosecution Insights