DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, dated 3/12/26, has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lys [US 7221104] in view of Yeon [US 2017/0130909] and Spero [US 2004/0105264].
As to claim 20, Lys discloses a light emitting device [see figures 1 and 2, for example], comprising: a first light source disposed on the substrate [left two 100, figure 2] and including a first light emitter and a second light emitter [each 100 in first light source]; and a second light source [right 2 100 in figure 2] disposed on the substrate and including a third light emitter and a fourth light emitter [each 100 in the light source]; wherein the first light source is configured to emit a first light and the second light source is configured to emit a second light having a peak intensity that is different from a peak intensity of the first light [see column 10, line 40 – column 11, line 29], wherein a quantity of light emitted from the first emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the second light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47], and wherein a quantity of light emitted from the third light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the fourth light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47].
Lys fails to explicitly disclose a substrate comprising a printed circuit board for the lighting unit.
Yeon teaches mounting the light sources on a luminaire comprising a printed circuit board was well known [see paragraph 49]. It would have been obvious to implement a printed circuit board as they are well known for their long life, economical manufacturing on a large scale, resistance to vibrations, ease of testing, low heat production, overall robustness of the integrated and printed circuit, and reduction in drawn current [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
Lys fairly contemplates the idea of separate colored LED packages, but does not explicitly define wherein each package has a quantity of light emitted from the first emitter which is different from a quantity of the second emitter due to emitter-to-emitter differentiation.
Spero teaches that such characteristics of LED groupings and color sources are well known in the art [see paragraph 98] and formulating control logic or other intensity controls because of these implicit and inherent characteristics of separate LED die constructions was well known [see paragraph 99, for example].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to configure LED dies which have different intensity characteristics which are inherent to their construction and active elements, with the light emitting configuration such as Lys, as such configurations allow for more precise color rendering as desired by a user [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
As to claim 21, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the peak intensity of the first light is greater than the peak intensity of the second light [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 22, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the peak intensity of the first light is greater than the peak intensity of the second light [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 23, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the printed circuit is configured to control an intensity of at least one of the first light source or the second light source [see column 9, lines 25-47].
As to claim 24, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the first light emitter emits a same type of light as the second light emitter [see column 10, lines 40 – column 11, line 29].
As to claim 25, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the first light has a peak wavelength that is shorter than a peak wavelength of the second light [see column 10, lines 40 – column 11, line 29].
As to claim 26, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 20, wherein the third light emitter is configured to emit a same type of light as the fourth light emitter [see column 10, lines 40 – column 11, line 29].
As to claim 27, Lys discloses a light emitting device [see figures 1, 2], comprising: a first light source [left two 100, figure 2] disposed on a substrate and including a first light emitter and a second light emitter [each 100 in first light source]; and a second light source disposed on the substrate [right 2 100 in figure 2] and including a third light emitter and a fourth light emitter [each 100 in second light source]; wherein the first light source is configured to emit a first light and the second light source is configured to emit a second light having a peak intensity that is different from a peak intensity of the first light [see column 10, line 40 – column 11, line 29], wherein a quantity of light emitted from the first light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the fourth light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47], and wherein a quantity of light emitted from the third light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the second light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47].
Lys fails to explicitly disclose a substrate comprising a printed circuit board for the lighting unit.
Yeon teaches mounting the light sources on a luminaire comprising a printed circuit board was well known [see paragraph 49]. It would have been obvious to implement a printed circuit board as they are well known for their long life, economical manufacturing on a large scale, resistance to vibrations, ease of testing, low heat production, overall robustness of the integrated and printed circuit, and reduction in drawn current [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
Lys fairly contemplates the idea of separate colored LED packages, but does not explicitly define wherein each package has a quantity of light emitted from the first emitter which is different from a quantity of the second emitter due to emitter-to-emitter differentiation.
Spero teaches that such characteristics of LED groupings and color sources are well known in the art [see paragraph 98] and formulating control logic or other intensity controls because of these implicit and inherent characteristics of separate LED die constructions was well known [see paragraph 99, for example].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to configure LED dies which have different intensity characteristics which are inherent to their construction and active elements, with the light emitting configuration such as Lys, as such configurations allow for more precise color rendering as desired by a user [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
As to claim 28, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 27, wherein the peak intensity of the first light is greater than the peak intensity of the second light [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 29, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 28, wherein the quantity of the light emitted from the first light emitter is greater than the quantity of the light emitted from the third light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 30, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 27, wherein the printed circuit is configured to control an intensity of at least one of the first light source or the second light source [see column 9, lines 25-47].
As to claim 31, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 27, wherein the quantity of the light emitted from the first light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the second light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 32, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 27, wherein the quantity of light emitted from the third light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the fourth light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 33, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 27, wherein the first light has a peak wavelength that is shorter than a peak wavelength of the second light [see column 10, line 40 – column 11, line 29].
As to claim 34, Lys discloses a light emitting device [see figures 1, 2], comprising: a first light source disposed on a substrate [left 2 100s, figure 2] and including a first light emitter and a second light emitter [each 100 in the first light source]; and a second light source [right 2 100s, figure 2] disposed on the substrate and including a third light emitter and a fourth light emitter [each 100 in the second light source], wherein the first light source is configured to emit a first light and the second light source is configured to emit a second light having a quantity of light that is different from a quantity of light of the first light [see column 9, lines 25-47], wherein a quantity of light emitted from the first light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the fourth light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47], and wherein a quantity of light emitted from the third light emitter is different from a quantity of light emitted from the second light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47].
Lys fails to explicitly disclose a substrate comprising a printed circuit board for the lighting unit.
Yeon teaches mounting the light sources on a luminaire comprising a printed circuit board was well known [see paragraph 49]. It would have been obvious to implement a printed circuit board as they are well known for their long life, economical manufacturing on a large scale, resistance to vibrations, ease of testing, low heat production, overall robustness of the integrated and printed circuit, and reduction in drawn current [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
Lys fairly contemplates the idea of separate colored LED packages, but does not explicitly define wherein each package has a quantity of light emitted from the first emitter which is different from a quantity of the second emitter due to emitter-to-emitter differentiation.
Spero teaches that such characteristics of LED groupings and color sources are well known in the art [see paragraph 98] and formulating control logic or other intensity controls because of these implicit and inherent characteristics of separate LED die constructions was well known [see paragraph 99, for example].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to configure LED dies which have different intensity characteristics which are inherent to their construction and active elements, with the light emitting configuration such as Lys, as such configurations allow for more precise color rendering as desired by a user [see Lys, column 76, lines 49-54].
As to claim 35, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 34, wherein the first light emitter is configured to emit a same type of light as the second light emitter [see column 10m, line 40 – column 11, lines 29].
As to claim 36, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 34, wherein the quantity of the light emitted from the first light emitter is different from the quantity of the light emitted from the second light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 37, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 34, wherein the quantity of the light emitted from the third light emitter is different from a quantity of the light emitted from the fourth light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 38, Lys discloses The light emitting device of claim 36, wherein the quantity of the light emitted from the first light emitter is greater than the quantity of the light emitted from the third light emitter [see column 9, lines 25-47, and column 12, lines 59-60].
As to claim 39, Lys discloses the light emitting device of claim 34, wherein the third light emitter is configured to emit a same type of light as the fourth light emitter [see column 10 lines 40 – column 11, line 29].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lys fails to disclose LED emitters which emit different qualities of light based on emitter-to-emitter differentiation. Examiner contends that all LED coloring configurations (such as green LEDs made by indium vs gallium emitters vs Blue or red LED dies) vary in their optical output efficiency and color mixing a plurality of groups to form a desired output light inherently must take into account emitter by emitter variation and specifically the output efficiency of each LED. As evidence, Lys includes a process by which LEDs may be powered according to a desired color mixing configuration, then the output light measured, and then the LED input voltages are varied (based on the emitter to emitter differentiation from each other and from a set stock output efficiency) in order to achieve the proper color combination [see Lys, column 52, lines 19-51]. Such modifications may be done solely on the basis of emitter to emitter differentiation. As such, Lys does disclose such a feature.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights