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 § 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, 3-7 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.
With regards to claim 1 , the claim recites a plurality of light emitting chips but subsequently refers to “the light emitting chip” without proper antecedent basis rendering the claim unclear and the structure of the device ambiguous.
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) 1,3,4,5,6,& 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 212005228 U) in view of Itoh (US pub no. 2016/0062023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al discloses An LED human centric lighting device, comprising a substrate(1), an LED light emitting chipset(2), a first color temperature blue light chip(23), a second color temperature blue light chip(22), a fluorescent colloid (291)and an enclosure(28); wherein the LED light emitting chipset comprises a plurality of LED light emitting chips, a first color
temperature light emitting area((292)of the first color temperature blue light chip(23) formed by
fluorescent colloid(292) has a relatively high color temperature(pp. 13 para 1), and a second color temperature light emitting area(291) of the second color temperature blue light chip (22)formed by fluorescent colloid has a relatively low color temperature(pp. 13, para 1), the first color
temperature light emitting area (292)and the second color temperature light emitting area (291)are separated by the enclosure(28)(pp. 10, para 1); the LED light emitting chip(one of 23) is arranged in the first color temperature light emitting area(292), the LED light emitting chip (one of LED 23)and the first color temperature blue light chip in the first color temperature light emitting area(292) are arranged based on a specific proportion.
Li et al fails to teach the LED light emitting chip is a chip with a light emitting wavelength of 480nm.
However, Itoh et al discloses an illumination device comprising LED (16d)having a wavelength of 480 nm [0180]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Li et al with the teachings of Itoh et al to provide optimal excitation wavelength to suppress a loss of light emission by the phosphors and improve the luminous efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al discloses wherein the LED light emitting chipset (2) forms a light emitting area (anyone of the other element 2 regions) independently(fig. 1/fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al discloses wherein the two color temperature light emitting areas(292/291) are spaced apart on the substrate(1)fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al discloses wherein the color
temperature light emitting areas (292/291)are symmetrically distributed on the substrate(1) fig. 1/fig. 9.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al discloses wherein a light emitting area formed by the LED light emitting chipset (2) is located in a middle of the substrate(1), and the different color temperature light emitting areas (292/291) are distributed on both sides of the light
emitting area(anyone of the other element 2 regions) formed by the LED light emitting chipset.(2) fig. 8.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al discloses wherein the different color temperature light emitting areas(192/291) are symmetrically distributed with respect to the light emitting areas (anyone of the other element 2 regions) formed by the LED light emitting chip set(2) fig. 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights