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 .
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.
Claim(s) 14-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2016/0161084) in view of Parkyn, Jr. et al. (US 5,926,320).
Regarding claim 14, Cho teaches an optic for a light module (figure 5; paragraph [0005]), the optic comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
373
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base surface (see bottom surface of 100 at least figure 5);
a lower end (see top portion of 100 where 100b extends in at least figure 5) opposite from the base surface (see bottom surface of 100 at least figure 5);
a first side (100a; figure 5); and
a second side opposite from the first side (100b; figure 5).
Cho does not explicitly teach wherein the overall optic comprises a negative draft in a direction from the base surface to the lower end and such that the optic tapers outwards as the optic extends away from the base surface to the lower end and wherein the optic comprises silicone.
PNG
media_image2.png
398
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
345
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches wherein the overall optic comprises a negative draft in a direction from the base surface to the lower end and such that the optic tapers outwards as the optic extends away from the base surface to the lower end (see figure 4 and 5 where a portion 12 and 16 tapers outwards as the optic extends away from the base surface to a lower end and see column 5, lines 30-67 where the lens comprises a negative draft) and wherein the optic comprises silicone (see column 5, lines 30-67 where the lens of figures 4 and 5 is made of Silicone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optic of Cho include to have a negative draft and a silicone material as taught by Parkyn, Jr. et al. to allow greater range of shapes and the lens can withstand elevated temperatures (see column 1, lines 63-67 through column 2, lines 1-10 of Parkyn, Jr. et al.)
Regarding claim 15, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 14, and Cho et al. further teaches wherein the optic further comprises: a first portion (100a; see at least figure 5) comprising an outer surface (see outer surface of 100a in at least figure 5) and a cavity (210; figure 5) defined in the base surface (bottom surface of 100) having a cavity surface (see at least figure 5), wherein the cavity is configured to receive a light source (light emitting device package 300; paragraph [0078]) and comprises a cavity axis (see at least figure 5, 8A and 8B where axis of cavity is shown), wherein the first portion is configured to refract first light rays from the light source (300; see paragraph [0101] where light is refracted by surface 210a and inclined surfaces 111a-114a), and wherein the first portion defines a first side of the optic (100; see at least figures 5, 8a and 8b); and a second portion integrally formed with the first portion and defining a second side of the optic (100; see at least figure 5 and paragraph [0042] where 100a and 100b are integrally formed with each other).
Regarding claim 16, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 15, and Cho further teaches wherein the cavity surface (see cavity 210 in at least figure 5) comprises a non-linear curvature.
Regarding claim 17, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 15, and Cho further teaches wherein the second portion comprises a total internal reflection (TIR) surface configured to reflect second light rays from the light source toward the first side of the optic (see paragraph [0101] where light is totally reflected).
Regarding claim 18, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 17, and Cho further teaches wherein the TIR surface is a first TIR surface (see paragraph [101]) and wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of TIR surfaces (see paragraph [0101])).
Regarding claim 19, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 14, but Cho does not explicitly teach wherein the silicone of the optic has a refractive index of about 1.39 to about 1.43, inclusive. Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches a lens made of silicone having refractive index of 1.43 (see column 1, lines 63-67 through column 2, lines 1-10 of Parkyn, Jr. et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the optic of Cho to have a refractive index of about 1.39 to about 1.43 as taught by Parkyn, Jr. et al. to withstand elevated temperatures and to form the lens with low pressure (see column 1, lines 63-67 through column 2, lines 1-10 of Parkyn, Jr. et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2016/0161084) in view of Parkyn, Jr. et al. (US 5,926,320) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Keller et al. (US 2021/0143302 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. teaches the optic of claim 14, but Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the silicone of the optic has a durometer in a range of 50 — 90 shore A.
Keller et al. teaches a lens 70 that is made of silicones having a durometer within a range of 50 – 90 shore A (see paragraph [0067] where the durometer reading is Shore A 70 or higher).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optic of Cho modified by Parkyn, Jr. et al. to include a durometer in the range of 50-90 Shore A as taught by Keller et al. so that the optic can withstand sheer forces (see paragraph [0067] of Keller et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11-13 and 21-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Householder teaches a lens assembly for a light module, the lens assembly comprising:
a lens (16; see at least figure 2) comprising a substrate with a first side and a second side, wherein an optic extends from a first side of the lens (16) and includes an optical cavity (18) exposed on the second side of the lens (16), wherein the optical cavity is configured to receive a light source (14; see at least figure 2) and
wherein the second side of the lens (16) defines a channel extending from the optical cavity (18; see at least figure 2).
Householder does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the lens further comprises a venting feature, wherein the channel extends from the optical cavity to the venting feature, and wherein the venting feature provides venting through the lens from the second side to the first side, wherein the venting feature comprises a venting aperture that extends through the substrate of the lens and a venting member that covers the venting aperture, wherein the venting member is positioned within a venting cavity positioned on the second side of the substrate.
The references of record, Householder (US 9,644,833 B1), Huang et al. (US 2015/0276200 A1), Kimura (US 2011/0164203 A1), do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Regarding claim 8, prior art of record, Duckworth (US 2014/0268763 A1) teaches a light module comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (mounting board 12, paragraph [0040]), with at least one light source (LEDs 14; see figure 1 and paragraph [0040]);
a lens assembly (optic 16, see paragraph [0039], [0041]) comprising a lens (32) with at least one silicone optic (see paragraph [0049], “the secondary lens 32 may be made from synthetic compounds for example silicone”); and a fastening mechanism (pins 50; see paragraph [0047] and figure 3) connecting the lens (32) to the PCB (mounting board 12; paragraph [0040]) and such that the at least one silicone optic (32) is provided over the at least one light source 12 (see paragraph [0043]; see figure 1).
Duckworth teaches an adhesive (para. [0047], “where optic component 16 also may be secured to the mounting board 12 with an adhesive in addition to, or in place of, the pins 50”) positioned between the PCB (mounting board 12; paragraph [0047]) but does not explicitly teach [wherein the fastening mechanism (pins 50) comprises adhesive] tape.
Prior art of record, Palfreyman et al. (US 2018/0073706 A1),teach the use of an adhesive tape to attach optic substrate 810 and/or optic elements 820 to an underlying structure (see paragraph [0135]).
Duckworth and Palfreyman et al. do not explicitly teach, inter alia, wherein the lens assembly further comprises at least one optical cavity for the at least one light source and one or more heat distribution channels defined in the lens configured to direct heated air within the lens assembly, the one or more heat distribution channels extending from the at least one optical cavity.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 11-13 and 21-25 are allowed based on dependency on an allowed base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 14, applicant respectfully submits that neither Cho nor Parkyn provide motivation to combine the silicon comprising optic of Cho with the optic of Parkyn having a negative draft angle in the context of the currently claimed light module, which relates to multi-optic LED light assemblies mounted on a PCB.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., modular, multi-optic LED light assemblies mounted on a PCB) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 14 recites an optic for a light module. The modification of Cho in view of Parkyn was for achieving an alternate desirable lighting distribution via having a negative draft and for the material comprising silicone. The motivation for combining Cho and Parkyn is to allow a greater range of shapes and achieve a lens that can with stand elevated temperatures.
Applicant argues that the Examiner's assertion that it would have been obvious to "modify the optic of Cho to have a negative draft and a silicone material as taught by Parkyn, Jr. et al. to allow greater range of shapes and the lens can withstand elevated temperatures," fails to fails to provide a rational underpinning to support the modification of Cho with what is being taught in Parkyn.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, combining Cho with the silicone optic having a negative draft would yield the claimed optic for a light module.
Applicant further states, Cho is cited for teaching a rigid silicon lens for control of light from an LED light source, but Cho does not teach or suggest optics with negative draft angles or the use of silicone for lens material. Id., page 3. Parkyn is cited for teaching a beam-forming lens system using negative draft angles and wherein the lens material can be silicone, but for use in maximizing light collection from a single light source, not for use in multi-optic LED modules like Cho. Id. There is no clear reason or motivation in either reference to modify Cho's lens design with Parkyn's negative draft and silicone features, especially given their different purposes and contexts.
The cited rationale is based on generic benefits of silicone and geometric design, rather than any teaching or suggestion in the art that such a combination would be suitable for or result in the lens assembly of claim 14.
Further, while Parkyn mentions the use of silicone as a lens material, it does so
specifically for high-temperature applications such as automotive headlamps. It does not teach or suggest the use of silicone in the context of modular, multi-optic LED light assemblies mounted on a PCB.
The Examiner’s position is that the Applicant is arguing features that are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e modular, multi-optic LED light assemblies mounted on a PCB) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 15-20 remain rejected based on dependency on rejected base claim 14.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-13 and 21-25 were indicated as allowed in the previous action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights