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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 24, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 7-10, “the light mask” should be, “the patterned light mask” in accordance with “a patterned light mask” in line 7. See and compare claim 15.
Claim 1 line 10, “the light emitting diodes” should be “the light emitting diode(s)”. See and compare line 5.
Claims 2-15 are objected to by reason of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2012/0069575 to Koh et al. (hereinafter Koh).
Claim 1
Koh (FIG. 1-6, 47) discloses an illuminated device, comprising:
a printed circuit board (11; paragraph 80);
one or a plurality of light emitting diodes (12; paragraph 81) mounted on the printed circuit board (11);
a reflective layer (13; paragraph 82) disposed over the printed circuit board (13), the reflective layer (13) being patterned to expose the light emitting diode(s)(12);
an optically transmissive lightguide layer (141; paragraph 84) disposed over the reflective layer (13); and
a patterned light mask (15; paragraph 138) disposed over the optically transmissive lightguide layer (141), the light mask (15) having opaque portions (151; paragraph 138) and transparent or translucent portions (152; paragraph 138), wherein transparent or translucent portions (152) of the light mask (15) overlay the reflective layer (13) and opaque portions (151) of the light mask (15) overlay the light emitting diodes (12).
Claim 2
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the lightguide layer (141) and the reflective layer (13) are integrated, at an interface between the lightguide layer (141) and the reflective layer (13), in a two-shot injection molding process (paragraph 82: reflective layer 13 formed of polycarbonate (PC) formed by a molding process; paragraph 84: layer 141 formed of polycarbonate (PC), paragraph 93: layer formed by injection molding). Additionally, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, because validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes. Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 92 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 3
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the lightguide layer (141) and the reflective layer (13) are molecularly bonded or fused together at an interface between the lightguide layer (141) and the reflective layer (13)(paragraph 82: reflective layer 13 formed of polycarbonate (PC) formed by a molding process; paragraph 84: layer 141 formed of polycarbonate (PC), paragraph 93: layer formed by injection molding). Additionally, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, because validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes. Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 92 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 4
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the lightguide layer (141) has an upper surface defining an inverted conical recess (1411; paragraph 84) overlying one of each of the plurality of light emitting diodes (12) and a lower surface defining a recess (1412; paragraph 84) in which an associated one of each of the plurality of light emitting diodes (12) is located, whereby light emitted from each of the plurality of light emitting diodes (12) can be internally reflected at an optic-to-air interface of the associated inverted conical recess (1411), and directed outwardly from the inverted conical recess and generally laterally through the lightguide layer (paragraph 85-95).
Claim 6
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the lightguide layer (141) is from 0.1 mm to 6 mm thick (FIG. 35).
Claim 7
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the reflective layer (13) and the lightguide layer (141) are comprised of polycarbonate (paragraph 82: “PC”, paragraph 84, “polycarbonate (PC)”).
Claim 8
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the reflective layer (13) and the lightguide layer (141) are comprised of polymethyl methacrylate (paragraph 82: “PMMA”, paragraph 84, “polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)”).
Claim 15
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the patterned light mask is a mirror having a transparent layer that is partially coated with a mirror plating to define the opaque portions.
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.
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of CN Publication 213746587 to Kugler in view of US Publication 2020/0096178 to Aviram et al. (hereinafter Aviram).
Claim 9
Koh discloses the device of claim 1, where components are surface-mounted (paragraph 81) to the PCB.
Koh does not expressly disclose wherein a side-emitting surface-mountable optic overlies one of each light emitting diode; each side-emitting surface-mountable optic including a base solder-mounted to the printed circuit board and an optically transmissive lens attached to the base, the lens having a generally cylindrical shape, including a generally circular perimeter wall, an inverted conical recess at a top of the lens, and a recess at a bottom of the lens overlying an opening in the base; and wherein the perimeter wall of each of the side-emitting surface-mountable optics interfaces with the lightguide layer, whereby light from underlying upwardly emitting light emitting diode can be internally reflected at an optic-to-air interface of the inverted conical recess, and directed outwardly from the generally circular perimeter wall and into and through the lightguide layer, as recited in claim 9.
Kugler (FIG. 4) teaches a side-emitting optic overlies a light emitting diode (5); the side-emitting optic including a base (6) and an optically transmissive lens (1) attached to the base (6), the lens (1) having a generally cylindrical shape, including a generally circular perimeter wall (2), an inverted conical recess (10) at a top of the lens (1), and a recess (9) at a bottom of the lens (1) overlying the base (6); and wherein the perimeter wall (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kugler with Koh to incorporate the lens arrangement taught by Kugler in the structure taught by Koh and thereby substitute the lens of Kugler with an upper conical recess for the recess structure in the lightguide structure of Koh and have the perimeter wall of the side-emitting surface-mountable optic interface with the lightguide layer, whereby light from underlying upwardly emitting light emitting diode can be internally reflected at an optic-to-air interface of the inverted conical recess, and directed outwardly from the generally circular perimeter wall and into and through the lightguide layer, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for mounting the LED and the optic in an opening in the lightguide layer, simplifying the assembly of the device and allowing for adjusting the shape of the incident surface and reflecting surface of the lens have ultra-low glare or no glare as taught by Kugler and without having to modify the expensive tooling required to form a recess in a lightguide layer.
Kugler (FIG. 4) does not expressly disclose the side-emitting optic is surface-mountable, the base is solder-mounted to a printed circuit board.
Aviram (FIG. 1) teaches a central silicone module optic that is surface-mountable, with a silicone lens (paragraph 44-45, 52) a base (106) with an opening for an LED (101), the base able to be solder-mounted to a printed circuit board (102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Aviram with Koh with Kugler to incorporate a base for a silicone lens as taught by Avirim in the structure taught by Koh with Kugler and thereby obtain a side-emitting surface-mountable optic overlying a light emitting diode; the side-emitting surface-mountable optic including a base solder-mounted to a printed circuit board, a recess at a bottom of the lens overlying an opening in the base, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for mounting an LED to the PCB and then later mounting the optic to the PCB rather than the LED and optic as a single package, allowing for greater flexibility in assembly and for easy substitution of components during assembly. Additionally, the module may utilize alignment features (Avirim paragraph 46) and base features (paragraph 51) allowing for easier and more robust assembly.
Claim 10
Koh with Kugler with Avirim teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the lens is comprised of silicone (Avirim paragraph 52).
Claim 11
Koh with Kugler with Avirim teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the lens (Avirim 108) includes a bottom flange (paragraph 51), and the base (106) is comprised of a metal plate (for soldering, see paragraph 51; see also Koh paragraph 80-81. 135; alternatively see Aviram paragraph 33: inclusion of metal reflector in base) having a plurality of tabs engaging the flange to attach the lens to the base (paragraph 51: “the base comprises one or more features (e.g., lip) that engages with feature(s) on the CSM such that the CSM is held in place by the base”).
Claim 12
Koh with Kugler with Avirim teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the base (Airim 106) further comprises a plurality of outwardly projecting tabs (paragraph 51) soldered to the printed circuit board.
Claim 13
Koh with Kugler with Avirim teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the recess at the bottom of the lens (Kugler FIG. 4: 4) has a convex surface facing and overlying an associated light emitting diode (Kugler FIG. 4: 5).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of Kugler.
Koh discloses the device of claim 4, as shown above.
Koh does not expressly disclose wherein the lower recess has a convex surface facing and overlying an associated light emitting diode, as recited in claim 9.
Kugler (FIG. 4) teaches utilizing a convex facing surface (4) overlying a light emitting diode (5) below a reflecting upper conical surface (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kugler with Koh to substitute a convex facing surface as taught by Kugler in the structure taught by Koh and thereby have the lower recess of Kugler (see, e.g., FIG. 47 1412) have a convex surface facing and overlying an associated light emitting diode, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for adjusting the incident surface as taught by Kugler to change the angle of light on the reflecting surface of the inverted conical recess to have ultra-low glare or no glare with high optical efficiency.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler in view of Avirim.
Claim 16
Kugler (FIG. 4) discloses 360-degree side-emitting optic comprising:
a base (6);
an optically transmissive lens (1) attached to the base (6) having a generally cylindrical shape, including a generally circular perimeter wall (2), an inverted conical recess (10) at a top of the lens (1), and a recess (9) at a bottom of the lens (1) overlying the base (6); whereby light from an underlying upwardly emitting light emitting diode (5) can be internally reflected at an optic-to-air interface of the inverted conical recess (10), and directed outwardly from the generally circular permitter wall (2), as recited in claim 16.
Kugler (FIG. 4) does not expressly disclose the 360-degree side-emitting optic is surface-mountable, the base is solder-mounted to a printed circuit board.
Aviram (FIG. 1) teaches an optic that is surface-mountable, the base able to be solder-mounted to a printed circuit board (102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Aviram with Kugler to incorporate the teachings of Avirim in the structure taught by Kugler, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for mounting an LED to the PCB and then later mounting the optic to the PCB rather than the LED and optic as a single package, allowing for greater flexibility in assembly and for easy substitution of components during assembly. Additionally, the module may utilize alignment features (Avirim paragraph 46) and base features (paragraph 51) allowing for easier and more robust assembly.
Claim 17
Kugler with Avirim teaches the optic of claim 16, wherein the lens is comprised of silicone (Avirim paragraph 52).
Claim 18
Kugler with Avirim teaches the optic of claim 16, wherein the lens (Avirim 108) includes a bottom flange (paragraph 51), and the base (106) is comprised of a metal plate (for soldering, see paragraph 51; alternatively see Aviram paragraph 33: inclusion of metal reflector in base) having a plurality of tabs engaging the flange to attach the lens to the base (paragraph 51: “the base comprises one or more features (e.g., lip) that engages with feature(s) on the CSM such that the CSM is held in place by the base”).
Claim 19
Kugler with Avirim teaches the optic of claim 18, wherein the base (Airim 106) further comprises a plurality of outwardly projecting tabs (paragraph 51) soldered to the printed circuit board.
Claim 20
Kugler with Avirim teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the recess at the bottom of the lens (Kugler FIG. 4: 4) has a convex surface facing and overlying an associated light emitting diode (Kugler FIG. 4: 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN MILAKOVICH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/NATHAN MILAKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848