DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/27/2025 (“amendment”) has overcome or caused to be withdrawn the objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections in the Office Action filed on 04/28/2025 (“Office Action”).
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/27/2025 has obviated the double patenting rejection in the Office Action; therefore, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection as set forth below.
Applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s Official Notice taken in claims 7 and 9-12 under MPEP 2144.03 (C); therefore, the limitations are taken to be admitted prior art.
Due to the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) being overcome by Applicant’s amendment, the claim is now given a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, see below.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 14, 21-33, 35-38, 41-50, 52, and 54-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaphe et al. (US 20140226327 A1; previously relied upon; “Yaphe”) in view of Keller et al. (US 20220026052 A1; “Keller”).
Re Claim 1:
Yaphe discloses a light fixture (shown in at least Figs 1-5 and described below) comprising:
a) an optical assembly comprising (described below):
i) at least one LED board (LED boards 119, described in at least ¶¶ 0022-0024) comprising two or more LEDs (shown in Fig 1A) mounted and positioned on at least one face of a printed circuit board (shown in Fig 1A) and controlled by one or more arranged electrical circuits (described at least in ¶ 0043 as internal LED driver housing 118 is rested across the base portion 116, in which various LED board driving and/or wiring components (not shown) may be disposed to power and drive the LED boards 119);
ii) a primary optical element (output element 172, Figs 1A and 3B) comprising at least one input face (faces facing toward 119 in Fig 3B) and an outer output face (face facing away from 119);
wherein the primary optical element (172) modifies a light distribution from the at least one LED board when light is transmitted through the primary optical element (diffuser, ¶ 0022);
b) at least one housing body (housing 104, Figs 1A-3B, ¶¶ 0022-0023) configured to position and retain the at least one LED board (119) and the primary optical element (172) in optical alignment (alignment shown in at least Fig 3B).
With further regard to LEDs, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting two or more LEDs independently controlled by one or more arranged electrical circuits by the description in ¶ 0024 of internal LED driver housing 118 is rested across the base portion 116, in which various LED board driving and/or wiring components (not shown) may be disposed to power and drive the LED boards 119.
With regard to a reflective surface, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting a reflective surface by describing liners 152 are manufactured of extruded, and in the context of an arcuate embodiment, rolled aluminum, though other manufacturing materials and techniques may readily apply, such as metal and/or plastic molding, casting and the like in ¶ 0028. Rolled aluminum and metal are readily recognized as reflective.
With regard to peak intensity, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting a peak intensity and light distribution from the light fixture are configured by selecting an electrical power to the two or more LEDs via the arranged electrical circuits of the at least one LED board due to the independent control at least suggested in ¶ 0024 and the recognition that peak intensity and light distribution necessarily occurs with any light emission.
Yaphe does not disclose that the primary optical element (172) is an edgelit light guide.
Keller teaches a primary optical element that may be an edgelit light guide (light guide plate 43, Fig 4, ¶ 0221) or a diffuser (diffuser plate 54) that is direct lit (due to the configuration in Fig 5 and description in ¶ 0225), and the equivalence for edgelit and direct lit for modifying a light distribution in a light fixture (in light fixture 70; Fig. 7; ¶ 0307-0308).
Prior art equivalence for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.06. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting an equivalent primary optical element that modifies light distribution (diffuser) to the claimed edgelit light guide and wherein the primary optical element modifieds the light distribution for the purpose modifying light distribution.
Re Claim 4:
Yaphe further discloses wherein the primary optical element (172) comprises (the examiner notes that limitation does not say consists) a single input face (surface facing 119) which is positioned adjacent to and receiving light from the at least one LED board (Fig 3B).
Re Claim 7:
Yaphe does not explicitly disclose wherein the primary optical element has an optical haze greater than 80 or a clarity less than 25.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that primary optical components with a predetermined optical haze and predetermined clarity was for the purpose of affecting light distribution was well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, specifically including a haze greater than 80 and a clarity less than 25. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have configured the primary optical element with a well-known predetermined optical haze and clarity, specifically including a haze greater than 80 and a clarity less than 25 for the purpose of affecting light distribution. Further, the claim recites the process steps of when measured using ASTM D1003 standard techniques. The italicized text cause the claim to be a product by process claim wherein the product is the optical haze is greater than 80 or clarity is less than 25 and the process is the recitation of when measured using ASTM D1003 standard techniques. The process limitation is unpatentable under MPEP § 2113 because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure and functionality of the claimed primary optical element and Yaphe’s primary optical element.
Re Claim 8:
With regard to the primary optical element, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting due to the description of diffuser in ¶ 0022.
Re Claim 9:
Yaphe does not explicitly disclose wherein the light scattering features comprise dispersed regions of refractive index differing from that of a bulk light transmissive material.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that light scattering features comprising dispersed regions of refractive index differing from that of a bulk light transmissive material were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the light scattering features of Yaphe with well-known dispersed regions of refractive index differing from that of a bulk light transmissive material for the benefit of having a definitive configuration to diffuse light.
Further, the claimed light scattering features are obvious variants as evident by the varied configurations shown in Fig 2D. Accordingly, the Examiner has not found the claimed limitation to have evidence of criticality.
Re Claim 10:
Yaphe does not disclose wherein the dispersed regions are comprised of polymer beads.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that dispersed regions comprising of polymer beads were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the dispersed regions of Yaphe to be comprised of well-known polymer beads for the benefit of having a definitive configuration to diffuse light.
Further, the claimed light scattering features are obvious variants as evident by the varied configurations shown in Fig 2D. Accordingly, the Examiner has not found the claimed limitation to have evidence of criticality.
Re Claim 11:
Yaphe does not explicitly disclose wherein the light scattering features are surface features upon one or both of the input face and output face of the primary optical element.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that light scattering features having surface features upon one or both of the input face and output face of the primary optical element were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the light scattering features of Yaphe with well-known features upon one or both of the input face and output face of the primary optical element for the benefit of having a definitive configuration to diffuse light.
Further, the claimed light scattering features are obvious variants as evident by the varied configurations shown in Fig 2D. Accordingly, the Examiner has not found the claimed limitation to have evidence of criticality.
Re Claim 12:
Yaphe does not explicitly disclose wherein the primary optical element comprises light redirecting surface features with a lenticular, sawtooth or prism profile.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that primary optical elements comprising light redirecting surface features with a lenticular, sawtooth or prism profile were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the primary optical elements of Yaphe to well-known features light redirecting surface features with a lenticular, sawtooth or prism profile for the benefit of having a definitive configuration to redirect light.
Further, the claimed light scattering features are obvious variants as evident by the varied configurations shown in Fig 2D. Accordingly, the Examiner has not found the claimed limitation to have evidence of criticality.
Re Claim 14:
With regard to electrical circuits, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Yaphe as at least suggesting two or more arranged electrical circuits wherein each arranged electrical circuit powers a specific portion of the optical assembly due to the description in ¶ 0024 of internal LED driver housing 118 is rested across the base portion 116, in which various LED board driving and/or wiring components (not shown) may be disposed to power and drive the LED boards 119.
Re Claim 21:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the light fixture is part of an installed panel system due to the configurations shown in at least Fig 6 and description in ¶ 0034 as luminaire is installed recessed within a drywall surface, drywall mud 380 (shown exaggerated for illustrative purposes in FIG. 6) may be laid over the textured outer flange 360 to provide a continuous transition to the drywall surface 382. These and other such alternatives should now be readily apparent to the skilled artisan, and are therefore intended to fall within the general scope and nature of the present disclosure as well as the configurations shown in Figs 7A-9.
Re Claim 22:
With further regard to the primary optical element, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting a primary optical element output face is retained in parallel alignment with an installed panel system plane or acoustic panel or drywall panel due to the configuration shown in Figs 6-9 and description in ¶ 0034 transposed with Fig 3B.
Re Claim 23:
With further regard to the primary optical element, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the primary optical element output face is retained at an oblique angle or tilted alignment with an or a drywall panel due to the configuration shown in Figs 6-9 and description in ¶ 0034 transposed with Fig 3A.
Re Claim 24:
With further regard to the installed panel system, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the installed panel system is from a group including a suspended ceiling grid system (Figs 7A-7B), a drywall ceiling installation (Fig 6, ¶ 0034), or a drywall wall installation (Fig 6, ¶ 0034).
Re Claim 25:
Yaphe further discloses housing body and primary optical element are in parallel alignment (104 and 172 are shown parallel in at least Fig 1).
Re Claim 26
Yaphe further discloses an extended edge feature (output coupling flange 158) in the form of at least one of a leg, prong, clip to aid in retaining and aligning the primary optical element (shown in at least Figs 3A-3B).
Re Claim 27:
Yaphe further discloses at least one support feature (outer flange 160, 360; Figs 3A-3B and 6) extending from at least one side portion of the housing body and configured to support and conceal an edge of a panel of an installed panel system (described in at least ¶¶ 0028 and 0034).
Alternatively, with regard to a support system, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting at least one support feature (outer flange 160, 360; Figs 3A-3B and 6) extending from at least one side portion of the housing body and configured to support and conceal an edge of a panel of an installed panel system (described in at least ¶¶ 0028 and 0034).
Re Claim 28:
Yaphe further discloses wherein the at least one support feature (160, 360) is configured in a T-bar flat shape (shape shown in Figs 3A-3B and 6).
Further, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting wherein the at least one support feature (160, 360) is configured in a T-bar flat shape.
Furthermore, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have change the form or shape of the at least one support feature to have an expected benefit of proper attachment to a desired surface. Further still, it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized the dimensions of the at least one support feature to be an equivalent dimension for the purpose of attaching to a surface.
Re Claim 29:
Yaphe further discloses wherein the at least one support feature (160, 360) is configured in a T-bar slotted profile shape (shape shown in Figs 3A-3B and 6; slots shown proximate to at least drywall surface 382 if Fig 6 ).
Further, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting wherein the at least one support feature is configured in a T-bar slotted profile shape.
Alternatively, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have changed the form or shape of the at least one support feature of Yaphe to have an expected benefit of proper attachment to a desired surface, specifically including a T-bar slotted profile shape.
Re Claim 30:
With regard to support features, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have recognized an equivalent configuration to the claimed vertical fin or spine further comprising a slot or aperture for the purpose of attaching to a surface. Alternatively, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have changed the form or shape of the at least one support feature of Yaphe to have an expected benefit of proper attachment to a desired surface, specifically including vertical fin or spine further comprising a slot or aperture.
Re Claim 31:
With further regard to the support features, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have changed the form or shape of the at least one support feature of Yaphe to have an expected benefit of proper attachment to a desired surface, specifically including to attach to T-bar anchor clips of T-bars within a multi T-bar cell array.
Re Claim 32:
Yaphe further discloses (in at least Figs 3A-3B and 6) wherein the at least one support feature (160, 360) is integral to the housing body (104).
Re Claim 33:
With regard support feature, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have recognized that the at least one support feature (160, 360) of Yaphe is detachably mounted to the housing body (104) because it necessarily occurs that any two objects are separable with the correct method, specifically including the at least one support feature and the housing body.
Re Claim 35:
With further regard to housing body, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the housing body extends longitudinally along a linear longitudinal axis due to the configuration shown in Fig 5 and 9.
Re Claim 36:
With further regard to the housing body, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the housing body extends longitudinally along a non-linear radius due to the configurations shown in Figs 1A-1B and 7A-8B.
Re Claim 37:
With further regard to the housing body (104), the claim recites the process steps of manufactured by a continuous extrusion process and cut to length. The italicized text cause the claim to be a product by process claim wherein the product is the housing body and the process is the recitation of manufactured by a continuous extrusion process and cut to length. The process limitation is unpatentable under MPEP § 2113 because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure of the claimed housing body and Yaphe’s housing.
Re Claim 38:
With further regard to the primary optical element, the claim recites the process steps of manufactured by a continuous extrusion process and cut to length. The italicized text cause the claim to be a product by process claim wherein the product is the primary optical element and the process is the recitation of manufactured by a continuous extrusion process and cut to length. The process limitation is unpatentable under MPEP § 2113 because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure of the claimed primary optical element and Yaphe’s primary optical element.
Re Claim 41:
With further regard to the primary optical element and housing body, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting at least one end of the primary optical element (160, 360) has a configured cut angle that corresponds to a configured cut angle of the housing body (due to the configuration shown in Figs 3A-3B.
Re Claim 42:
With further regard to the cut angle, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the configured cut angle for at least the housing is not 90 degrees due to the configurations shown in Figs 1A-1B and Figs 7A-9.
Re Claim 43:
With further regard to housing body, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting the housing body is a configured at an angle that is not 90 degrees, due to the configurations shown in Figs 1A-1B. With regard to cut at. The italicized text cause the claim to be a product by process claim wherein the product is the housing body and the process is the recitation of cut at. The process limitation is unpatentable under MPEP § 2113 because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure of the claimed housing body and Yaphe’s housing body.
Re Claim 44:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting mounted in a ceiling grid cell such that its housing body is at an oblique angle to a T-bar of a ceiling grid cell due to the configuration shown in Figs 7A-7B.
Re Claim 45:
With further regard to the housing body, Yaphe discloses changes in from or shape of the housing body in Figs 7A-9 and change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting an equivalent configuration to the claimed shape of the housing body is substantially triangular for the purpose of attaching to a surface. Alternatively, it would have been within the level of a PHOSITA to have changed the form or shape of the housing body of Yaphe to have an expected benefit of proper attachment to a desired surface, specifically including one that accommodates a substantially triangular shape.
Re Claim 46:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting mounted in a corner of a ceiling grid cell such that an end plate or end cap rests on a T-bars that are connected within a ceiling grid system due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025 and configuration shown in at least Figs 7A-7B.
Re Claim 47:
With further regard to the housing body, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting a length of each side portion of the housing body has a different length due to at least the configuration shown in at least Figs 1A-1B and 7A-7B.
Re Claim 48:
With further regard to the housing bodies, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting is configured as multiple elongate housing bodies to be joined at the configured cut angle and non-joined ends to be enclosed by one or more end plates or end caps due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025 and configuration shown in at least Figs 7A-7B. With regard to cut angle is selected to enable, the italicized text cause the claim to be a product by process claim wherein the product is the housing bodies and the process is the recitation of cut angle is selected to enable. The process limitation is unpatentable under MPEP § 2113 because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure of the claimed housing bodies and Yaphe’s housing bodies.
Re Claim 49:
With further regard to the lighting fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting the light fixture is configured as an ‘X’ shape due to description in ¶ 0020 and configuration in Fig 9.
Re Claim 50:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting at least end cap mounted to an end of the housing body (104) to enclose an internal cavity due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025 and cavity shown in Figs 1A-1B.
Re Claim 52:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe at least suggesting the at least one end plate or end cap is configured to mount onto a support feature of another light fixture of claim 1 due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025.
Re Claim 54:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting at least one end plate or end cap encloses a longitudinal end of multiple housing bodies due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025, specifically including end support structures 112 are further configured to provide fastening apertures 124 in accommodating installation of an end cap (not shown), as well as provide endwise coupling features 126, 128 for the end-to-end coupling of adjacent luminaire modules.
Re Claim 55:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting the housing bodies are in a parallel arrangement due to the configuration due to the description of the end cap in ¶ 0025 and configuration shown in Fig 9.
Re Claim 56:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting a configured cut angle of the longitudinal end of multiple elongate housing bodies is not 90 degrees and the end plate or end cap is mounted non-perpendicular to the housing bodies due to the configurations shown in at least Figs 7A-7B.
Re Claim 57:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting mounted across a ceiling grid cell of an installed panel system such that the housing bodies are obliquely aligned with ceiling grid T-bars of the ceiling grid cell. due to the configurations shown in at least Figs 7A-7B.
Re Claim 58:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting multiple light fixtures of claim 1 arranged to produce a geometric shape due to the description of end caps in ¶ 0025, description in ¶ 0041, and configurations in Figs 1A-1B and 7A-9.
Re Claim 59:
With further regard to the light fixture, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Yaphe as at least suggesting wherein the geometric shape consists of a circle due to configurations shown in Figs 7A-7G and description in ¶ 0041.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 17-20, 34, 39-40, 51, 53, and 60-63 are objected to being allowed due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re Claim 3:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the height of the LED as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 5:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the reflector as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 6:
he closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the two input faces as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 17:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the auxiliary optical element as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 18-20:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claims 17.
Re Claim 34:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the height of the light fixture as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 39:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the reflective material on one or more of its edges as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 40:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the reflective material as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 51:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the primary optical element end face as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 53:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the mounting feature configured to attach over a vertical portion of a ceiling grid T-bar as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 60:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the electronic controller as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 61:
The closest prior art of record (Yaphe) fails to any one of disclose or suggest the combined structure and functionality of the geometric pattern as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 62-63:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 61.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. The Examiner is relying upon new reference, Keller to obviate the new limitations. Therefore, the claim remains rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 have been considered but are moot because the Examiner did not describe the limitations as anticipated as described on Page 4, rather the Examiner took Official Notice predetermined optical haze and predetermined haze for the of affecting light distribution was well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This notice was not traversed. With regard to the light guide plate limitation, the Examiner has provided rationale with prior art equivalence for a light guide plate and diffuser in amended claim 1, above. Therefore, the claim remains rejected.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10:00 am-6:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875