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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach unified control of all LED chips of the same color or color temperature across the entire array; simultaneous activation of such LED chips to maximize lens utilization; or a technical purpose or benefit related to far-field projection or reflective surface efficiency, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case the claims are directed to “an LED light emitting structure” (claim 1 preamble), which is neither disclosed nor claimed to include the controller and driving circuitry that would be used to assert unified and simultaneous control of all LED chips of the same color or color temperature across the entire array. The claim, furthermore, merely requires that the LED can be controlled at the same time; that is, they are capable of being controlled simultaneously, which is entirely consistent with Negley’s disclosure (Negley paragraph 340).
Applicant argues that Negley does not provide a benefit related to far-field projection or reflective surface efficiency. The examiner disagrees. Negley does provide benefits to far-field projection (Negley paragraph 432), the claims do not require a reflective surface of any kind, and if applicant is referring to a TIR surface of the lenses, there is no indication that the TIR surfaces 108 in Negley are any different than those described in the present application: as you can see from Negley’s Figs. 12-13, Negley is utilizing the reflective surfaces 108 in what appears to be the same way applicant is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negley et al. (US 2011/0182065 A1) in view of Savvateev et al. (US 2010/0165001 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Negley teaches “an LED light emitting structure (10), comprising an LED lamp bead set (14), the LED lamp bead set comprising at least two LED lamp beads (see Fig. 1), characterized in that, each of the LED lamp beads comprises a lens (11) and an LED chip set (see Fig. 2), the lens is disposed above the LED chip set (see Fig. 1), the LED chip set comprises at least two LED chips (see Figs. 2, 8) with at least one being a first LED chip (81) and at least one being a second LED chip (82), and the first LED chip and the second LED chip are different in color temperature or color (paragraph 422), wherein all the LED lamp beads in the LED lamp bead set are arranged in a matrix (see Fig. 2), wherein the LED lamp bead set is at least disposed in two columns and is at least disposed in two rows (see Fig. 2), adjacent four LED lamp beads form a local LED lamp bead set (see Fig. 2), and the local LED lamp bead set is arranged in a 2x2 matrix (see Fig. 2); wherein all the LED chips with the same color temperature or color in the same LED lamp bead or different LED lamp beads can be controlled to emit light at the same time (paragraph 340), and when the LED chip with a certain color temperature or color is controlled, the LED chips with corresponding color temperature or colors in all the LED lamp beads will emit light (paragraph 340)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the local LED lamp bead set are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips (R, G, B) in the local LED lamp bead set (Fig. 4) are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 2: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 1 (see above)”.
Negley teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED chip set are arranged in a matrix (see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 3: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 2 (see above)”.
Negley teaches “wherein the LED chip set comprises two LED chips which are the first LED chip and the second LED chip, respectively (paragraph 422)”.
With respect to claim 4: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 2 (see above)”.
Negley teaches “wherein the LED chip set comprises four LED chips (see Fig. 2) with two being the first LED chips and the other two being the second LED chips (paragraph 431)”.
With respect to claim 5: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 4 (see above)”.
Negley teaches “wherein the four LED chips are arranged in a 2×2 matrix, and the two first LED chips or the two second LED chips are located on the same row or the same column or on a diagonal line (see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 7: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 1 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 11: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 2 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 13: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 2 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the local LED lamp bead set are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips (R, G, B) in the local LED lamp bead set (Fig. 4) are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 15: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 3 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 17: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 3 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the local LED lamp bead set are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips (R, G, B) in the local LED lamp bead set (Fig. 4) are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 19: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 4 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 21: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 4 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the local LED lamp bead set are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips (R, G, B) in the local LED lamp bead set (Fig. 4) are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 23: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 5 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of columns are disposed in vertical symmetry, or/and all the LED chips in the LED lamp bead set disposed in an even number of rows are disposed in horizontal symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 25: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “The LED light emitting structure of claim 5 (see above)”.
Negley does not specifically teach “wherein all the LED chips in the local LED lamp bead set are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry”.
However, Savvateev teaches “wherein all the LED chips (R, G, B) in the local LED lamp bead set (Fig. 4) are disposed in horizontal symmetry or/and vertical symmetry or/and central symmetry (see Fig. 4)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LED light emitting structure of Negley by arranging the LEDs in the symmetric arrangement taught by Savvateev in order to reduce the occurrence of colored artifacts (Savvateev paragraph 58).
Claims 26-30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negley in view of Savvateev as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0016340 A1).
With respect to claims 26-30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50: Negley in view of Savvateev teaches “the LED light emitting structure of claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 (see above)”.
Negley does not teach a headlamp comprising the LED light emitting structure of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25.
However, Cho teaches a headlamp (800) which uses an LED light emitting structure (801) analogous to the LED light emitting structure of Negley as the headlamp’s light source.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the LED light emitting structure taught by Negley in view of Savvateev in a headlamp as taught by Cho due to the art recognized suitability of LED light emitting structures as the light source of headlamps and because LEDs cause less pollution and last longer than other light source options used in headlamps (Cho paragraphs 4-8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875