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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 12-20 in the reply filed on 04 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04 February 2026. As per the amendment: claims 5-9 and 12-20 have been amended, claims 10-11 have been cancelled, and claims 21-22 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-9 and 12-22 are presently pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/182023, 10/20/2025, and 01/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-22 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, it is unclear what is meant by “first light source is adapted to emit light substantially only in a first predetermined spectrum in a range from 600 nm to 1400 nm”. The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clearly, the term “substantially” allows for wavelengths outside of “only” 600-1400 nm to be included in the scope of the claims, but what is unclear us how much/many. Claims 2-22 rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knoedgen (US 2013/0221862 A1), hereinafter Knoedgen.
Regarding claim 1, Knoedgen discloses a lighting system (Abstract: “The disclosure relates to illumination systems”, [0002] “the present disclosure related to a method and system for avoiding flicker…in solid state lighting (SSL) devices such as LED (Light Emitting Diode) or OLED (Organic LED) assemblies”, Figure 1: light bulb assembly 1) comprising:
a first light source (Figure 1: light source 6, [0029] “a light source 6 (also referred to as a SSL device) is provided within the housing 2. Examples for such light sources 6 are a solid state light source 6, such as a light emitting diode (LED) or an organic light emitting diode (OLED)”) adapted to emit light substantially only in a first predetermined spectrum in a range from 600 nm to 1400 nm ([0065] “The driver circuit 200 (and in particular the controller 220) may be configured to control the SSL device 250 to emit IR light pulses”, One skilled in the art would know that IR light pulses have a wavelength between 780 nm to 1400 nm.); and
a driver circuit (driver circuit 200) arranged to provide a first pulsed current to the first light source for producing the light in the first predetermined spectrum ([0065] “The driver circuit 200 (and in particular the controller 220) may be configured to control the SSL device 250 to emit IR light pulses during the time intervals in between the pulse intervals 403 and to thereby transmit encoded information via a sequence of IR pulses within the time intervals in between the pulse intervals 403.”, [0011] “The controller may be configured to control the power converter to generate the drive voltage for the SSL device within the plurality of pulse intervals, such that the drive voltage within the plurality of pulse intervals corresponds at least to the on-voltage of the SSL device (plus a possible minimum voltage drop across the current source).”) ;wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate multiple pulses of the first pulsed current during a first period and no pulses of current during a second period, the first period and the second period alternating with each other ([0048] “In other words, typically the SSL device 250 only generates light during the pulse intervals 403, whereas no light is generated at time instances outside of the pulse intervals 403, i.e. in between the pulse intervals 403.”, [0011] “Furthermore, the controller may be configured to control the power converter to generate substantially no drive voltage at time instants other than the plurality of pulse intervals (i.e. at time instants in between the pulse intervals).”) ; and
wherein the first pulsed current has a first pulse frequency and a first duty cycle during the first period, the first pulse frequency being 100 Hz or higher ([0047] “This is illustrated in FIG. 4 which shows a sequence of pulse intervals 403 during which the power converter 230 and/or the current source 240 are activated, in order to generate a drive voltage and a drive current to the SSL device 250. The illustrated pulse intervals 403 have a frequency of e.g. 500 Hz (i.e. a frequency above the cut-off frequency for intensity variations of the human eye).”), and the first duty cycle being 0.5 percent or above (Figure 4: Duty cycle = pulse width/period = 0.5 ms/2 ms = ¼ = 25%) .
Regarding claim 8, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a width of the pulses of 0.05 ms or more (view Figure 4: pulse width is 0.5 ms, Examiner would like to note that each line across the x axis represented 0.5 ms).
Regarding claim 9, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a period between pulses of 0.05 ms or more (Figure 4: period between the pulse I and II is 2 ms).
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) 2-3 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ando et al. (EP 2 696 655 A1), hereinafter Ando.
Regarding claim 2, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a last portion of the first period.
However, Ando teaches a lighting device for turning on a solid state light-emitting device ([0002]) wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a last portion of the first period (view Figure 3: “Coil Current”, [0044] “Specifically, "Coil current" has a rise period (corresponding to the above first time period) in which triangle waves continue the heights of which gradually increase, and a fall period in which triangle waves continue the heights of which gradually decrease.”, [0046] “Thus, the LEDs 3 emit light at brightness according to a current corresponding to a mean value of "Coil current" of FIG. 3”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Ando to have the driver circuit adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a last portion of the first period, as these prior art references are directed to solid state light-emitting device. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver radiation to prevent noticeable changes in light output.
Regarding claim 3, Knoedgen in view of Ando teaches the lighting system of claim 2 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly teach wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which is substantially constant during a second portion of the first period.
However, Ando teaches wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which is substantially constant during a second portion of the first period ([0044] “Due to such operation of the drive circuit 20, a current having the waveform as shown in "Coil current" of FIG. 3 flows through the choke coil 11…Furthermore, "Coil current" has, between the rise period and the fall period, a time period (a time period corresponding to the above second time period) where the height of triangle waves is constant.”, view Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Ando to have the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having an amplitude of the pulses which is substantially constant during a second portion of the first period, as these prior art references are directed to solid state light-emitting device. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver radiation to prevent noticeable changes in light output.
Regarding claim 21, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is configured to gradually increase the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a first portion of each first period, and gradually decrease the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a last portion of each first period.
However, Ando teaches a lighting device for turning on a solid state light-emitting device ([0002]) wherein the driver circuit is configured to gradually increase the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a first portion of each first period, and gradually decrease the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a last portion of each first period (view Figure 3: “Coil Current”, [0044] “Specifically, "Coil current" has a rise period (corresponding to the above first time period) in which triangle waves continue the heights of which gradually increase, and a fall period in which triangle waves continue the heights of which gradually decrease.”, [0046] “Thus, the LEDs 3 emit light at brightness according to a current corresponding to a mean value of "Coil current" of FIG. 3”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Ando to have the driver circuit is configured to gradually increase the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a first portion of each first period, and gradually decrease the amplitude of the first pulsed current during a last portion of each first period, as these prior art references are directed to solid state light-emitting device. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver radiation to prevent noticeable changes in light output.
Regarding claim 22, Knoedgen in view of Ando discloses the lighting system of claim 21 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is configured to maintain the first pulsed current at a substantially constant amplitude during a second portion of each first period, the second portion occurring between the first portion and the last portion of each first period.
However, Ando teaches wherein the driver circuit is configured to maintain the first pulsed current at a substantially constant amplitude during a second portion of each first period, the second portion occurring between the first portion and the last portion of each first period ([0044] “Due to such operation of the drive circuit 20, a current having the waveform as shown in "Coil current" of FIG. 3 flows through the choke coil 11…Furthermore, "Coil current" has, between the rise period and the fall period, a time period (a time period corresponding to the above second time period) where the height of triangle waves is constant.”, view Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Ando to have the driver circuit is configured to maintain the first pulsed current at a substantially constant amplitude during a second portion of each first period, the second portion occurring between the first portion and the last portion of each first period, as these prior art references are directed to solid state light-emitting device. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver radiation to prevent noticeable changes in light output.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US Patent 9,877,361 B2), hereinafter Williams.
Regarding claim 4, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse-width of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a subsequent portion of the first period.
However, Williams teaches biotechnology for photobiomodulation and phototherapy (Column 1, lines 14-15) wherein the first pulsed current having a pulse-width of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a subsequent portion of the first period (Figure 6A: LED (Output) Current, Column 11, lines 39-59: “The average LED current and therefore LED brightness shown by curve 65a represents a level 66% that of the pulsed current value…Between time t.sub.1 and time t.sub.2, the brightness control changes to a duty factor of 50% as shown by average value 65b…Similarly between time t.sub.2 and time t.sub.3, is the brightness control increases to a duty factor of 75% as shown by average value 65c…After time t.sub.3 the average duty factor 65d drops to only 12% or 491 pulses per period”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Williams to have the first pulsed current having a pulse-width of the pulses which increases for successive ones of the pulses during a first portion of the first period, and decreases for successive ones of the pulses during a subsequent portion of the first period, as these prior art references are directed to photobiomodulation devices. One would be motivated to do this as lowering the pulse width can reduce power consumption and save battery life (Column 11, lines 58-59).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 101288096 B1, citations from NPL translation), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency which is a multiple of 24 pulses per second and/or 30 pulses per second.
However, Lee teaches a multi-channel LED dimming dimmer and control method to prevent flicker phenomena during camera image capture ([0001]) wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency which is a multiple of 24 pulses per second and/or 30 pulses per second (pg. 6: “setting unit that appropriately sets the driving frequency of the LED driver in correspondence with the shutter speed to prevent camera flicker, thereby controlling the brightness of the LED lamp in a pulse width modulation (PWM) manner…it is characterized by setting the driving frequency of the LED driver to 120Hz).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Lee to have the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency being a multiple of 24 pulses per second and/or 30 pulses per second, as these prior art references are directed to controlling LED and reducing flicker. One would be motivated to do this to prevent camera flicker, as recognized by Lee (pg. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency being a multiple of a frame rate of an imaging device capable of recording images and/or video.
However, Lee teaches a multi-channel LED dimming dimmer and control method to prevent flicker phenomena during camera image capture ([0001]) wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency being a multiple of a frame rate of an imaging device capable of recording images and/or video (pg. 6: “setting unit that appropriately sets the driving frequency of the LED driver in correspondence with the shutter speed to prevent camera flicker, thereby controlling the brightness of the LED lamp in a pulse width modulation (PWM) manner…it is characterized by setting the driving frequency of the LED driver to 120Hz when the shutter speed is 60)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Lee to have the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency being a multiple of a frame rate of an imaging device capable of recording images and/or video, as these prior art references are directed to controlling LED and reducing flicker. One would be motivated to do this to prevent camera flicker, as recognized by Lee (pg. 6).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hontele (US Patent 8,847,519 B2), hereinafter Hontele.
Regarding claim 6, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency which is a multiple of a mains power supply frequency.
However, Hontele teaches a driver for driving a LED wherein “a converter 5 receives the AC mains voltage, and outputs a DC current. A chopper 6 receives the DC current from the converter 5, and outputs a chopped current having a chopping frequency typically in the range of 300 Hz to 3 kHz, at least higher than the mains frequency.” (Column 1, lines 33-38) noting that “If the chopping frequency is not an exact multiple of the mains frequency, a beat effect may occur so that the light output slowly varies at a relatively low frequency, which is perceived as flicker: for instance, if the mains frequency is equal to 50 Hz and the chopping frequency is equal to 310 Hz, a beating frequency of 10 Hz may occur. An object of the present invention is to provide a driver system in which this problem is eliminated or at least reduced.” (Column 1, lines 55-63) and thus “the chopping frequency is synchronized to the mains frequency, while the phase of the chopping frequency with respect to the mains frequency is set at random. As a result, if multiple LEDs are driven by multiple drivers having the present invention implemented, all LEDs will be driven at the same frequency but they will have different phases with respect to each other. Due to the synchronization, no beat effects will occur.” (Column 1, line 65 -Column 2, line 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Hontele to have the driver circuit is adapted to generate the first pulsed current having a pulse frequency which is a multiple of a mains power supply frequency, as these prior art references are directed to driving/controlling LEDs to reduce flicker. One would be motivated to have the pulse frequency to be a multiple of the main power supply frequency to prevent flicker, as recognized by Hontele (Column 1, lines 55-63).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodriguez et al. (US 2019/0247528 A1), hereinafter Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 12, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to disclose wherein ratio between the first period to the second period is 1:10 or less.
However, Rodriguez et al. (US 2019/0247528 A1) is a luminaire comprising a white light source and a violet light source wherein ratio between the first period to the second period is 1:10 or less (view Figure 6: Examiner interprets the white light as the second period and the violet light as the first period. It is observed that the white light is always ON as compared to the violet light which is pulsed., [0092] “during cleansing light emissions there will always be some perceptible white light component of the output from the luminaire 11”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Rodriguez to have wherein ratio between the first period to the second period is 1:10 or less, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this as this would allow the device to be free from perceptible flicker, as recognized by Rodriguez ([0091]).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above in view of Derma RED P600: Red & Near-Infrared Light Device. Care Lamps. (23 November 2020). https://carelamps.com/products/derma-red-p600-red-light-therapy-device, hereinafter CareLamps.
Regarding claim 13, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is 1 mW/cm2 or more, preferably between 0.4 and 50 mW/cm2, and more preferably between 1 and 15 mW/cm2.
However, CareLamps teaches wherein the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is 1 mW/cm2 or more, preferably between 0.4 and 50 mW/cm2, and more preferably between 1 and 15 mW/cm2 (view Power Density image on pg. 3 of attached NPL).
Although CareLamps does not explicitly teach these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use values within these ranges because CareLamps’ ranges are shown to be effective and they overlap heavily with the applicant’s ranges, therefore discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 10USPQ 233.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of CareLamps to have the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is 1 mW/cm2 or more, preferably between 0.4 and 50 mW/cm2, and more preferably between 1 and 15 mW/cm2 , as these prior art references are directed to flicker-free photobiomodulation devices. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver an intensity effective for treatment of the user.
Regarding claim 14, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is sufficient to induce a photobiomodulation effect in a human.
However, CareLamps teaches wherein the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is sufficient to induce a photobiomodulation effect in a human (view Power Density image on pg. 3 of attached NPL, Examiner would like to note that CareLamps developed devices for photobiomodulation and thus it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that these power densities at these densities would induce some sort of photobiomodulation effect).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of CareLamps to have the irradiation intensity at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is sufficient to induce a photobiomodulation effect in a human, as these prior art references are directed to flicker-free photobiomodulation devices. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver effective for treatment of the user.
Regarding claim 15, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the delivered dose over 8 hours at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is between 0.01 and 50 J/cm2, and preferably between 0.1 and 10 J/cm2.
However, CareLamps discloses wherein the delivered dose over 8 hours at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is between 0.01 and 50 J/cm2, and preferably between 0.1 and 10 J/cm2 (@0.3 m, 52 mW/cm2 , 7 minute treatment time: Dose = (Power density X Time) x 0.001 = (52*420)*0.001= 21.84 J/cm2).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of CareLamps to have the delivered wherein the delivered dose over 8 hours at an average distance of between 0.2 and 5m from the first light source is between 0.01 and 50 J/cm2, and preferably between 0.1 and 10 J/cm2, as these prior art references are directed to flicker-free photobiomodulation devices. One would be motivated to do this as to deliver effective for treatment of the user.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Broeng et al. (WO 2018/152255 A1), hereinafter Broeng.
Regarding claim 16, Knoedgen discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen fails to disclose the system further comprising a second light source adapted to emit white light suitable for general illumination, wherein the second light source is adapted to emit at least 250 lumens, preferably at least 1000 lumens, more preferably at least 2000 lumens when operating.
However, Broeng et al. (WO 2018/152255 A1) teaches a light therapy system (Abstract) wherein the system further comprising a second light source adapted to emit white light suitable for general illumination ([0012] “a light therapy system is described herein that uses two light sources comprising different wavelengths. Fig. 2 shows chromaticity diagram from which it can be seen that a specific white light color can be generated with different wavelengths combinations. As an example of one preferred embodiment, a system is provided, where a first light source comprises the wavelengths 460 nm, 650 nm, and 570 nm, and a second light source comprises the wavelengths 490 nm, 770 nm (or 670 nm) and 600nm…The two light sources are substantially synchronized such that when the first light source is turned on, the second light source is turned off, and vice versa. Hence, the experience by a human is constant white light illumination, but the white light is composed of two different light sources of which one provides substantially more light from 440 nm to 480 nm at the non-visual ganglion cells at the retina and therefore increased brain activity via stroboscopic light around 460 nm”) , wherein the second light source is adapted to emit at least 250 lumens, preferably at least 1000 lumens, more preferably at least 2000 lumens when operating ([0031],[0043] “second light source provides a luminous intensity ranging from about 10 lm, or from about 25 lm, or from about 50 lm, or from about 100 lm, or from about 500 lm, up to about 10,000 lm, or up to about 5,000 lm, or up to about 1000 lm”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Knoedgen to incorporate the teachings of Broeng to have a second light source adapted to emit white light suitable for general illumination, wherein the second light source is adapted to emit at least 250 lumens, preferably at least 1000 lumens, more preferably at least 2000 lumens when operating, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy systems. One would be motivated to do this to provide sufficient lamination to the user.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoedgen in view of Broeng as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2014/0053487 A), hereinafter Lee’487 in view of Van de Ven et al. (WO 2021/026218 A2), hereinafter Van de Ven.
Regarding claim 17, Knoedgen in view of Broeng teaches the lighting system of claim 16 (as shown above). Knoedgen and Broeng, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach wherein the white light emitted by the second light source is directed onto one or more reflectors so that the white light is emitted from the lighting system having a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half- power angle of 2x23 degrees or more.
However, Lee’487 teaches a light therapy device for general and therapeutic lighting ([0001], [0023]) wherein the white light emitted by the second light source is directed onto one or more reflectors so that the white light is emitted from the lighting system ([0027] “The lighting module (160) is configured…to include a reflector that reflects and disperses light emitted from the light source to deliver to the user”, [0051], pg. 6: “a reflector that reflects the general light or therapy light from the lighting source and irradiates it to the outside of the housing”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen and Broeng to incorporate the teachings of Lee’487 to have the white light emitted by the second light source is directed onto one or more reflectors, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to prevent light concentration ([0053]) and to ensure that the light is transmitted evenly over a wide area (pg.9), as recognized by Lee’487.
Knoedgen, Broeng, and Lee’487, alone or in combination, fail to teach that the light emitted having a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half- power angle of 2x23 degrees or more.
However, Van de Ven teaches a treatments for administering radiation to users wherein the light emitted has a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half- power angle of 2x23 degrees or more (pg. 44: “these high-power LEDs, with reflector optics having dispersion angles of approximately 45-90 degrees, can deliver desired light output with uniform intensity diffused across a large area in contact or non-contact methods of treatment.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen, Broeng, and Lee’487’s reflectors to incorporate the teachings of Van de Ven to have the light emitted from the reflectors has a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half- power angle of 2x23 degrees or more, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to be able to deliver the desired light at a uniform intensity, as recognized by Van de Ven (pg. 44).
Regarding claim 18, Knoedgen in view of Broeng discloses the lighting system of claim 1 (as shown above). Knoedgen and Broeng, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the light emitted by the first light source is emitted from the lighting system having a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half-power angle of 2x45 degrees or less.
However, Van de Ven a treatments for administering radiation to users wherein the light emitted by the first light source is emitted from the lighting system having a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half-power angle of 2x45 degrees or less (pg. 44: “these high-power LEDs, with reflector optics having dispersion angles of approximately 45-90 degrees, can deliver desired light output with uniform intensity diffused across a large area in contact or non-contact methods of treatment.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen and Broeng to incorporate the teachings of Van de Ven to have the light emitted by the first light source is emitted from the lighting system having a radiation pattern with a full-width-at-half-power angle of 2x45 degrees or less, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to be able to deliver the desired light at a uniform intensity, as recognized by Van de Ven (pg. 44).
Regarding claim 19, Knoedgen, Broeng, Lee’487, and Van de Ven teaches the lighting system of claim 17 (as shown above). Knoedgen, Broeng, and Van de Ven, alone or in combination, fail to teach the system comprising a luminaire, wherein the first and second light sources and the one or more reflectors are installed in the luminaire.
However, Lee’487 teaches the system comprising a luminaire (housing 110, [0024] “The housing (110) serves as a case for the lighting module (160) and as an installation structure that allows the lighting module (160) to be installed at a location desired by the user”), wherein the first and second light sources and the one or more reflectors are installed in the luminaire ([0033] “a lighting module (160) installed in a housing (110)”, [0027] “The lighting module (160) generates and emits normal light or therapy light under the control of the control device (200).”, pg. 18: “One or more of these lighting modules (160) are configured in the housing (110), and each lighting module (160) may be configured to include both a general light source and a therapy light source, or each lighting module (160) may have a general light source and a therapy light source configured separately. This lighting module (160) is configured to include a printed circuit board on which a light source is formed, and a plurality of printed circuit boards are combined to form a light source, and is configured to include a reflector that reflects and disperses light emitted from the light source to deliver it to the user.”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knoedgen, Broeng, and Van de Ven to incorporate the teachings of Lee’487 to have the system comprising a luminaire, wherein the first and second light sources and the one or more reflectors are installed in the luminaire, as these prior art references are directed to light therapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to be able to encompass the light sources and for an easy installation structure to be installed at a desired location, as recognized by Lee’487 ([0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Knoedgen, Broeng, Lee’487, and Van de Ven teaches the lighting system of claim 19 (as shown above). Knoedgen, Broeng, and Van de Ven, alone or in combination, fail to teach the system comprising a lamp for lighting a work space, wherein the first and second light sources and the one or more reflectors are mounted in the lamp, the lamp being adapted to direct the white light from the second light source onto a work space and to direct the light from the first light source onto a user.
However, Lee’487 teaches a lamp (lighting unit 100, Examiner notes that a lamp is defined as “any various of devices for producing light” - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lamp ) for lighting a workspace, wherein the first and second light sources and the one or more reflectors are mounted in the lamp ([0033] “a lighting module (160) installed in a housing (110)”, [0027] “The lighting module (160) generates and emits normal light or therapy light under the control of the control device (200).”, pg. 18: “One or more of these lighting modules (160) are configured in the housing (110), and each lighting module (160) may be configured to include both a general light source and a therapy light source, or each lighting module (160) may have a general light source and a therapy light source configured separately. This lighting module (160) is configured to include a printed circuit board on which a light source is formed, and a plurality of printed circuit boards are combined to form a light source, and is configured to include a reflector that reflects and disperses light emitted from the light source to deliver it to the user.”), the lamp being adapted to direct the white light from the second light source onto a workspace and to direct the light from the first light source onto a user ([0023] “the lighting unit (100) generates and irradiates light for general lighting and multiple monochromatic lights for therapy”, pg. 18: “This lighting module (160) operates by power and light control signals supplied from the control device (200) to supply general light, therapy light, and light mixed with general light and therapy light to the user”, [0052]).
It should be further noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F. 2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipated or obviousness is established (See MPEP 2112.01) and therefore since Lee’487’s system will be able to light a workplace, direct white light onto a workspace, and direct the other light onto the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights