DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, shape of the resulting individual beams determined by the rotation of the array of optical elements relative to the array of light sources must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings only indicate the overall lighting pattern being changed, not the individual beams. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a rear face of the solid option”. This appears to be a typographical error and should read “a rear face of the solid optic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 sets forth “a shape of the resulting individual beams is determined by an amount of rotation of the array of optical elements relative to the array of light sources”. There is no indication of this relationship in the disclosure. Figure 2d is the only representation of the luminance profiles of the light beams, and appears to show that the light beams can have different positions, but does not indicate or support any recitation that the aspect ratio or shape of the resulting individual beams is changed by rotation of the array. I.e. Figure 2d appears to show that the light beams are moving, not that they are changing shape.
The disclosure only sets forth that the aspect ratio of the overall light beam is changed by rotation of the optics with respect to the light sources. The Examiner finds that the recitation is therefore new matter with respect to the original disclosure.
Claims 2-9, 12-14 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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, 12-14 is/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;
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 configured to produce a beam which 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);
and further wherein
the light sources are arranged along a straight line (see fig. 5);
the beam-steering optical elements are arranged exclusively in the second straight line along a single linear axis, with no adjacent rows of optical elements (see fig. 5);
each of the beam-steering optical elements comprises 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 further configured to be displaceable relative to the array of light sources along an axis of displacement that is perpendicular to the linear axis, while each optical element remains in the second plane 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 so that a shape of the resulting individual beams is determined by an amount of rotation of the array of optical elements relative to the array of the light sources (see fig. 5d, circular individual beam patterns, see fig. 5e ellipsoidal individual beam patterns).
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).
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 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument directed towards the Kim reference on page 11 has appears to have a typographical error as it ends mid-sentence.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to Boonekamp, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Boonekamp is a secondary reference, the primary reference Kim teaches the lenses being laterally moved within the plane, but not explicitly rotated. Boonekamp is relied on to indicate that it is known to rotate lenses within a plane 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.
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 other arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
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 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