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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-14, and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takeshita [US 2018/0279454].
As to claim 1, Takeshita discloses a light fixture [see figure 3] comprising: a plurality of light sources [A22]; a diffuser [A40] spaced a distance from the light sources [see figures 3, 5]; and one or more optics positioned proximate and over at least some of the plurality of light sources [A213, figure 5] such that at least one light source emits light into each of the one or more optics [see figure 5], wherein the one or more optics comprises at least a subset of colored optics [see paragraph 112], wherein the plurality of light sources project, via the one or more optics, a predetermined image on the diffuser [see figures 3, 5].
As to claim 2, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the subset of colored optics are part of a first optic, wherein the first optic is configured to generate a wide batwing distribution [see shape of A213, figure 5].
As to claim 4, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the subset of colored optics comprise coloration domes [see paragraph 112].
As to claim 5, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 4, wherein the coloration domes comprise at least one of: a fully colored dome [see A213, figure 5] and a partially colored dome having one or more colored portions and one or more clear portions.
As to claim 8, Takeshita discloses wherein the coloration domes are formed integrally with an optic overlay [see figure 5, wherein 213 and all other structures, such as A216, which may be an optic overlay, are integral].
As to claim 12, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 1, wherein the subset of colored optics are arranged within the one or more optics to emulate a sky appearance via projection, wherein the sky appearance is projected on the diffuser only when the plurality of light sources are activated [see paragraph 2, figure 3].
As to claim 13, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 12, wherein colored portions of the subset of colored optics generate a blue portion of the sky appearance [see paragraph 186].
As to claim 14, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 13, wherein the subset of colored optics includes at least one colored optic with clear portion configured to generate a cloud portion of the sky appearance, and/or the light fixture further includes a subset of clear optics configured to generate a cloud portion of the sky appearance [see paragraph 190, 192, 300, 313].
As to claim 16, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 1, wherein a total colored area of the colored optics is less than a total colored projected area on the diffuser [see figure 3].
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita in view of Wilcox [US 7938558].
As to claim 3, Takeshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein other of the one or more optics comprise a subset of clear optics. Wilcox teaches the use of clear, transparent lenses [see Wilcox, 20, figure 4, see also column 4, lines 61-65]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the lenses as taught by Wilcox with the lighting unit as taught by Takeshita, depending on the color of light as desired [see Takeshita, paragraph 669].
As to claim 15, Takeshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more optics is made of a non-diffusing material. Wilcox teaches the use of clear, transparent lenses [see Wilcox, 20, figure 4, see also column 4, lines 61-65]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the lenses as taught by Wilcox with the lighting unit as taught by Takeshita, depending on the color of light as desired [see Takeshita, paragraph 669].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita in view of Radcoff [US 2010/0177513].
As to claim 6, Takeshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the partially colored dome comprises at least one of: a colored portion provided on only a first side of the partially colored dome and a clear portion provided on an opposing, second side of the partially colored dome; a majority colored dome distributed with one or more discrete clear portions; and a majority clear dome distributed with one or more discrete colored portions. Radcoff teaches the form of lenses wherein a colored portion provided on only a first side of the partially colored dome and a clear portion provided on an opposing was well known [see figure 4, showing colored portion 234 on top side with clear portion below]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the phosphor configuration as taught by Radcoff in the lighting unit of Takeshita, in order to use less phosphor and improve color rending efficiency [see Takeshita, paragraph 669].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita.
As to claim 7, Takeshita discloses the light fixture of claim 4, wherein each of the coloration domes are elongated in shape [see figure 5] but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coloration domes cover at least two light sources. Ashdown teaches implementing multiple LED dies in a single lensed lighting unit was well known [compare figures 4 and 5]. It would have been obvious to implement at least two light sources in each dome, depending on the amount of light desired to produce for a user [see Takeshita, paragraph 669].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 9 and its dependent claims recite the details wherein the coloration domes are provided in a plurality of rows on the optic overlay, and wherein the optic overlay comprises a cutout between two rows of the plurality of rows. This feature is not taught in or disclose in Takeshita, and such a deficiency is not remedied by any other references in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tran [see PTO-892 for references], Pederson, Parker, Pohlert, Sayers, and Lys all teach alternative embodiments of light sources with controllable illumination and diffusers. 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