DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-9, 12-20is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. 2021/0393819) in view of Boonekamp (U.S. 11,391,441).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a lighting fixture comprising an array of light sources (see fig. 5a, 5b) arranged along a first straight line in a first plane, with no adjacent rows of optical elements (singular row); wherein:
a corresponding array of beam-steering optical elements (linear array) arranged along a second straight line in a second plane parallel to the first plane (see fig. 5);
each light source and its corresponding beam-steering optical element are configured to produce a beam that is emitted in a direction dependent upon the position of the light source relative to a central axis of a corresponding beam-steering optical element (see p. 0117, see fig. 5d, 5e, 5f; different directions of emission));
each of the beam-steering optical elements includes a lens with a conformal reflector (collimator 125, using transparent solid optic 124 with reflective material 122) and is positioned in optical communication with a corresponding light source in the array of light sources;
the array of beam-steering optical elements is translatable relative to the array of light sources about an axis of displacement that is perpendicular to the linear axis, while each optical element remains in the second plane (see fig. 5d, 5e, 5f) and
displacement of the array of optical elements causes variation in the orientation of each light source relative to its corresponding beam-steering optical element (see fig. 5e, 5f), such that resulting individual beams produced by the light sources are emitted in different directions and the lighting fixture produces an output beam from all the light sources of the array of light sources with a shape determined by an amount of displacement of the array of optical elements relative to the array of light sources (see fig. 5e, see fig. 5f, different shaped output based on location of lenses) such that the output beam has a first shape when the array of optical elements is centered over the array of light sources (see fig. 5d), the output beam has a second shape different than the first shape when the array of optical elements is translated a first amount about the axis of rotation (see fig. 5e) and the output beam has a third shape different than the first shape and the second shape when the array of optical elements is translated a second amount about the axis of rotation (interpolation, an angle between 5d and 5e would result in a shape between 5d and 5e but being neither), the second amount different than the first amount.
Kim does not teach that the array of beam steering optical elements is further configured to be rotatable relative to the array of light source along an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the linear axis.
Boonekamp teaches at the array of beam steering optical elements is further configured to be rotatable relative to the array of light source along an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the linear axis (see col. 2 line 50- col. 3 lines 13, rotatable optical sheets).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have enabled a rotatable function of a linear array as taught by Boonekamp for the linear array of Kim to further increased the control and adjustability of the lens of Kim, enabling additional lighting profiles and control (see col. 2 line 63-col. 3 line 5 of Boonekamp “A translation may be used in combination with rotation so that the rotated sheet fits best within the outer profile of the lighting device. Thus, rotation about one axis in combination with a translation may be used to implement an effective rotation about a different axis).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches at least one of the optical elements comprises a solid optic with a conformal reflector (see fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the conformal reflector comprises a reflective coating disposed on a rear face of the solid option and is conformal to contours of the solid optic (see fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Boonekamp teaches that the axis of rotation of the array of beam-steering optical elements passes through a center portion of the array of light sources (rotates about center of array, 40a see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches that for at least one rotational position of the array of beam-steering optical elements, each light source in the array of light sources is identically positioned with respect to a corresponding one of the beam-steering optical elements in the array of beam-steering optical elements (see fig. 5b, all light sources at center, collimated beams).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boonekamp and Kim teaches that the light sources within the array of light sources are not all uniformly positioned with respect to the array of optical elements for a given relative rotational position of the array of optical elements (any degree of rotation about central pin).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches that the beam generated by each light source of the array of optical elements is a round beam (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches that rotation of the array of optical elements relative to the array of the light sources is limited to a predetermined range (see fig. 5a-5f).
The Examiner notes that the limitation appears to be a negative limitation of a function. I.e., a user can perform the function of Kim if they only use the lighting structure to form ellipsoidal or oval shapes. The Examiner suggests reciting a claim to define the structure that prevents the forming of anything other than an ellipsoid or oval shape.
Regarding claims 9, Kim teaches a baffle disposed with respect to the array of light sources and configured to restrict glare (see p. 0105, see 206 of fig. 5)
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches further comprising an actuator for adjusting the rotation of the array of optical elements (actuators 204).
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not teach that the actuator is manually- adjustable.
Boonekamp teaches that the actuator is manually-adjustable (col. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a manually adjustable actuator as taught by Boonekamp to reduce cost of manufacture and energy usage by removing the motor actuators of Kim.
Regarding claim 14 Kim teaches that the actuator is driven by a motor (motor actuated, see p. 0116).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a lighting fixture comprising:
a plurality of light sources (see fig. 5a, 5b) arranged linearly in a first plane along a first linear axis; and
a plurality of beam-steering optical elements (linear array) arranged linearly in a second plane along a second linear axis, the second plane parallel to the first plane (see fig. 5);
wherein the plurality of beam steering optical elements are translatable in unison about an axis of rotation to change alignment of the light sources with respective centers of the optical elements, such that an output beam from the plurality of light sources has a shape (see fig. 5e, see fig. 5f, different shaped output based on location of lenses) based on the degree of rotation of the plurality of beam steering optical elements about the axis of rotation, the shape including(see p. 0117, see fig. 5d, 5e, 5f; different directions of emission):
a first shape when the array of optical elements is centered over the array of light sources (see fig. 5d),
a second shape different than the first shape when the array of optical elements is rotated a first amount about the axis of rotation (see fig. 5e) and
a third shape different than the first shape and the second shape when the array of optical elements is rotated a second amount about the axis of rotation (interpolation, an angle between 5d and 5e would result in a shape between 5d and 5e but being neither), the second amount different than the first amount.
Kim does not teach that the array of beam steering optical elements is further configured to be rotatable relative to the array of light source along an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the linear axis.
Boonekamp teaches at the array of beam steering optical elements is further configured to be rotatable relative to the array of light source along an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the linear axis (see col. 2 line 50- col. 3 lines 13, rotatable optical sheets).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have enabled a rotatable function of a linear array as taught by Boonekamp for the linear array of Kim to further increased the control and adjustability of the lens of Kim, enabling additional lighting profiles and control (see col. 2 line 63-col. 3 line 5 of Boonekamp “A translation may be used in combination with rotation so that the rotated sheet fits best within the outer profile of the lighting device. Thus, rotation about one axis in combination with a translation may be used to implement an effective rotation about a different axis).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches that the first shape is round (fig. 5a), the second shape is a first ellipse (5e), and the third shape is a second ellipse (5f).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches that the second shape is an ellipse with a first length and the third shape is an ellipse with a second length, the second length greater than the first length (interpolated position between 5e and 5f).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches that the first linear axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and the second linear axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation (axis of rotation is perpendicular to planes).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches that the first linear axis and the second linear axis are parallel when the plurality of optical elements centered over the plurality of light sources (5e), the first linear axis and the second linear axis are not parallel when the plurality of optical elements is rotated about the axis of rotation by the first amount or the second amount (rotated).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in light of Boonekamp teaches that the first linear axis and the second linear axis align at the axis of rotation (central axis of rotation of Boonekamp).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boonekamp, further in view of Tavernese (U.S. 10,082,252).
Alternatively, regarding claim 9, Kim does not teach comprising a baffle configured to restrict glare light.
Tavernese teaches comprising a baffle configured to restrict glare light front light element 130, see col. 3 lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a Baffle as taught by Tavernese to prevent emission of high angle light of Kim and therefore prevent undesirable glare for users and protect the LED module from external light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that assert that “Kim teaches lateral displacement of a collimator array but admits that Kimd does not teach an array of beam steering optical elements that are rotatable relative to an array of light sources”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kim specifically teaches beam steering optical elements that are translatable relative to an array of light sources. Kim only fails to teach that the elements are rotated about a central axis.
Boonekamp is a secondary reference, the primary reference Kim teaches the lenses being laterally moved within the plane, however they do not rotate about a central axis. Boonekamp is relied on to indicate that it is known to rotate lenses within a plane about a central axis to change the angle of light emission or other desired optical effects. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would find Boonekamp an applicable reference to combine with Kim as it teaches additional arrangements of in plane movement of a lens to change the optical output. Boonekamp is not being bodily incorporated into Kim, but is relied on to teach using a central axis of rotation to change optical effects.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments regarding Boonekamp do not consider the teachings of Kim and what one would find obvious in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights