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Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from consideration;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 is 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 § 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 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2009/0322227A1 hereinafter “Jones” in view of US2017/0130909A1 hereinafter “Yeon”
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses optoelectronic component (¶55L1: an LED array), with
at least one segment (¶56L1-2: the array comprises 64 LEDs arranged in 8 columns of 8 LEDs), wherein
each segment comprises two or more radiation emitting semiconductor chips configured to emit electromagnetic radiation into a region (¶56L1-2: the array comprises 64 LEDs arranged in 8 columns of 8 LEDs),
each segment is associated with a radiation detecting semiconductor chip configured to detect electromagnetic radiation from the region (¶58L1-8: each column of LEDs is provided with a first and a second photodiode sensor), and
each individual radiation emitting semiconductor chip of a segment is drivable independently of the other radiation emitting semiconductor chips of the segment. (¶69L1-3: the circuit includes a plurality of LED control circuit, with one control circuit being provided for each set of LEDs)
Jones does not expclitly disclose:
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.
Jones does disclose that the LED array is connected to control electronics (¶83L1-4) and Yeon disclose a lighting system wherein a driving control chip is used to perform functions of a driving controller. (¶64L1-7)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to use the driving control chip disclosed by Yeon to be the control electronics disclosed by Jones.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because a driving control chip can help reduce the overall size of the device as it takes up less space, furthermore, a control chip can be easily programmed for additional control.
Regarding claim 2, Jones in view of Yeon hereinafter “Jones/Yeon” discloses in Jones 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. (as shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3 for example)
Regarding claim 6, Jones discloses 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
Jones 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, Jones/Yeon discloses in Jones 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, Jones/Yeon discloses in Jones 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, Jones/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, Jones/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 Jones) (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)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones/Yeon in view of US2018/0359825A1 hereinafter “Hussell”
Regarding claim 3, Jones/Yeon discloses optoelectronic component of claim 1
Jones/Yeon does not explicitly disclose:
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.
Hussell discloses an emitter array wherein one or more optic elements (e.g., lens) may be provided as illustrated in Fig.9 (¶42L1-4) and wherein the optic element include any number of separate or connected lens elements (¶42L15-17)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the LED array disclosed by Jones by incorporating the optic element disclosed by Hussell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this enables the LED array to selectively illuminate different portion of the field of view (Hussell ¶42L1-4)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones/Yeon in view of US2018/0359825A1 hereinafter “Hussell” in view of US2021/0333152A1 hereinafter “Hiremath”
Regarding claim 4, Jones/Yeon discloses optoelectronic component of claim 1
Jones/Yeon does not explicitly disclose:
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, and
the other of the two optics is arranged on the radiation emitting semiconductor chips of a segment.
Hussell discloses an emitter array wherein one or more optic elements (e.g., lens) may be provided as illustrated in Fig.9 (¶42L1-4) and wherein the optic element include any number of separate or connected lens elements (¶42L15-17)
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 the optic element disclosed by Hussell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this enables the LED array to selectively illuminate different portion of the field of view (Hussell ¶42L1-4)
Jones/Yeon in of Hussell hereinafter “Jones/Yeon/Hussell” does not explicitly disclose:
one of the two optics is arranged on the radiation detecting semiconductor chip of a segment
Hiremath discloses a sensor device wherein the sensor device includes an optics element (¶65L1-9: an ambient light sensor comprises a light pipe disposed over the ambient light sensor)
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/Yeon/Hussell by incorporating the optic element disclosed by Hiremath.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this enables the lights to be directed to the ambient light sensor to ensure the most accurate reading.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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