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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Pelutri does not teach a violet LED operated exclusively in a first mode and the cyan LED operated exclusively in the second mode; nor does it teach a driver capable of doing this: (Remarks p. 2) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Implicit in applicant’s argument is the idea that the first and second modes are operated in isolation (i.e., exclusively in a first or second mode). The claims do not specify or require that. Both claims 1 and 20 state that a first mode and second mode must be present, but there is no relationship as to their timing or exclusivity. Applicant is free to amend the claims to recite this; moreover, it does not appear this is taught by the combination of David and Pelutri.
As interpreted by Examiner, the driver needs only to be able to drive the cyan and violet LEDs to direct light onto the red and green quantum dots and produce the first and second emission profiles. Pelutri’s driver does just that.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Re Pelutri fails to teach short green quantum dots: (Remarks p. 2) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pelutri in ¶168 lists a whole list of various quantum dot compounds, many of which produce different wavelengths of green, with some being necessarily shorter than others.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been objected to because: on lines 11-12 “said violet light said, red light” should be “said violet light, said red light”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re 1-19: in claim 1, “and said GQDs to emit said red light and short green light respectively, wherein second emission comprises at least a portion of said cyan light said red light and said green light” is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. First, “said red light and short green light” lacks antecedent basis for “said…short green light.” Examiner understands “said” to refer to both the red and short green light, as this is done previously in the claim to refer to “said red light and green light” (lines 10-11); moreover, line 6 first defines “green light” so this is a natural reading.
Second, the last line states “said cyan light said red light and said green light” which is confusing because in the second mode which drives the second emission, the second emission is not outputting “said short green light” that the cyan and quantum dots produce. As a typographical matter, there should also be commas separating the different types of light.
In light of this, Examiner has read “short green light” as “green light” to maintain antecedent basis and produce harmony with the GQD’s definition of producing green light.
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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. US 20170368210 (“David”) in view of Pelutri et al. US 20220036793 (“Pelutri”).
Re 1-2 and 11-13: David teaches (¶¶103-120; Figs. 1A-17):
In claim 1:
a violet LED for emitting violet light (¶¶108-110);
a cyan LED for emitting cyan light (¶¶108-110);
red phosphor for emitting red light (¶¶108-120);
green phosphor for emitting green light (¶¶108-120);
a driver configured at least for driving said violet LED in a first mode, and driving said cyan LED in a second mode (¶100-106: teaching dynamic lighting selecting any combination of the lights is possible ;109-110: the driver drives each LED with a specific amount of power, the respective power corresponding to a first mode and a second mode);
wherein in said first mode, said violet LED is driven to emit said violet light, a portion of which is absorbed by said red phosphor and said green phosphor to emit said red light and green light respectively, wherein first emission comprises at least a portion of said violet light said, red light and said green light; and
wherein in said second mode, said cyan LED is driven to emit said cyan light, a portion of which is absorbed by said red phosphor and said green phosphor to emit said red light and short green light respectively, wherein second emission comprises at least a portion of said cyan light said red light and said green light.
In claim 2: wherein first emission comprises at least a portion of said violet light said, red light and said long green light; and wherein second emission comprises at least a portion of said cyan light said red light and said short green light.
David does not explicitly teach: in claim 1 red QDs (RQDs) for emitting red light; green QDs (GQDs) for emitting green light. In claim 2: wherein said GQDs comprise: long Green QDs (LGQDs) for emitting long green light; short Green QDs (SGQDs) for emitting short green light. In claim 11: wherein said RQDs has a peak wavelength between 600 and 640 nm. In claim 12: wherein LGQDs has a peak wavelength between 530 and 580nm. In claim 13: wherein said SGQDs has a peak wavelength between 500 and 540nm.
David does teach, as mentioned above, red and green phosphors which are a known equivalent to shifting wavelengths to quantum dots (see below where this is evidenced by Pelutri).
Pelutri teaches (¶102, 168) in claim 1 red QDs (RQDs) for emitting red light; green QDs (GQDs) for emitting green light. In claim 2: wherein said GQDs comprise: long Green QDs (LGQDs) for emitting long green light; short Green QDs (SGQDs) for emitting short green light. In claim 11: wherein said RQDs has a peak wavelength between 600 and 640 nm. In claim 12: wherein LGQDs has a peak wavelength between 530 and 580nm. In claim 13: wherein said SGQDs has a peak wavelength between 500 and 540nm.
Pelutri explicitly recognizes phosphors may be interchanged with quantum dots. Moreover, quantum dots can produce more precise colors, be energy efficient, and have long lifespans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify David with Pelutri’s teachings to use quantum dots, a known alternative to phosphors, which also include the benefits of producing more precise colors, be energy efficient, and have long lifespans.
Re 3-8: David does not explicitly teach:
wherein said first emission has a first circadian stimulus (CS) less than half a second CS of said second emission.
wherein said first emission has a first CS less than 1/3 or 1/4 of a second CS of said second emission.
wherein said first emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460 and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is less than 2% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said blue SPD power is less than 1% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said second emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460nm and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is more than 10% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said second emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460nm and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is more than 10% of said overall SPD power.
Pelutri teaches/discloses (¶¶8-9, 12-23, 98-100, 126; Tables 44, 58-60; Figs. 3a-13, 19-21, 24-35):
wherein said first emission has a first circadian stimulus (CS) less than half a second CS of said second emission.
wherein said first emission has a first CS less than 1/3 or 1/4 of a second CS of said second emission.
wherein said first emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460 and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is less than 2% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said blue SPD power is less than 1% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said second emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460nm and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is more than 10% of said overall SPD power.
wherein said second emission has an overall SPD power and a blue SPD power between 460nm and 485nm, wherein said blue SPD power is more than 10% of said overall SPD power.
At the outset, Examiner notes that the spectral power distribution is taught as taking on specific values in David; thus it likely discloses the claims. Nevertheless, Examiner relies on Pelutri, as Pelutri more explicitly teaches, the circadian stimulus can be varied to effect a variety of biological and physiological responses; for example, paragraph 121 details some of the reasons one would vary it to achieve certain responses. Moreover, spectral power is a proxy – i.e., a function – of circadian stimulus and can be another way to achieve these responses; by changing the spectral power profile, different color combinations are achieved which produce a specific response. Stated differently, both circadian stimulus and spectral power are result-effective variables that are varied to achieve certain biological/physiological responses.
And, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the various spectral powers and circadian stimuli are ranges that are disclosed by the prior art. Thus, it is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify David and Pelutri’s disclosure with Pelutri’s additional teachings in order to optimize the device for particular biological responses.
David discloses:
Re 9: wherein said violet LED has a peak wavelength between 395 and 440nm.
Re 10: wherein said cyan LED has a peak wavelength between 470 and 520nm.
Re 14: further comprising at least one QD Sheet comprising said RQDs, LGQDs, and SGQDs dispersed within a transparent matrix (Figs. 4a-4c: a sheet includes the phosphors so when modified as in claim 1 above this is a natural consequence).
Re 15: wherein said driver comprises a control module for selecting between said first and second modes based on at least one of a real-time clock, ambient light sensor, user-defined setting, wireless signal, or a wearable device (¶103).
Re 17: wherein said driver is configured to operate in a third mode in which both said violet and said cyan LEDs are powered (¶¶100-107).
Re 18: A display comprising said backlight of claim 1 (¶74, 122).
Re 19: David teaches the display of claim 18.
David does not explicitly teach further comprising: an LCD panel in front of said backlight. However, David does teach the device can be used as a backlight in a traditional display
Pelutri teaches (¶106) further comprising: an LCD panel in front of said backlight.
LCD’s are often used in displays as they provide a known method for displaying graphical information. And David teaches the device may be used in traditional displays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Pelutri and David’s disclosed device with Pelutri’s further teachings in order to effectuate a display in a known and widely available manner.
Re 20: David teaches (¶¶103-120; Figs. 1A-17):
a violet LED for emitting violet light (¶¶108-110);
a cyan LED for emitting cyan light (¶¶108-110);
red phosphor for emitting red light (¶¶108-120);
green phosphor for emitting green light (¶¶108-120);
a driver configured at least for driving said violet LED in a first mode, and driving said cyan LED in a second mode (¶100-106: teaching dynamic lighting selecting any combination of the lights is possible ;109-110: the driver drives each LED with a specific amount of power, the respective power corresponding to a first mode and a second mode);
wherein in said first mode, said violet LED is driven to emit said violet light, a portion of which is absorbed by said red phosphor and said green phosphor to emit said red light and green light respectively, wherein first emission comprises at least a portion of said violet light said, red light and said green light; and
wherein in said second mode, said cyan LED is driven to emit said cyan light, a portion of which is absorbed by said red phosphor and said green phosphor to emit said red light and green light respectively, wherein second emission comprises at least a portion of said cyan light said red light and said green light.
David does not explicitly teach: red QDs (RQDs) for emitting red light; green QDs (GQDs) for emitting green light.
David does teach, as mentioned above, red and green phosphors which are a known equivalent to shifting wavelengths to quantum dots (see below where this is evidenced by Pelutri).
Pelutri teaches (¶102, 168) red QDs (RQDs) for emitting red light; green QDs (GQDs) for emitting green light.
Pelutri explicitly recognizes phosphors may be interchanged with quantum dots. Moreover, quantum dots can produce more precise colors, be energy efficient, and have long lifespans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify David with Pelutri’s teachings to use quantum dots, a known alternative to phosphors, which also include the benefits of producing more precise colors, be energy efficient, and have long lifespans.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David and Pelutri as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Heller US 20200352006 (“Heller”).
David and Pelutri do not explicitly disclose wherein said driver uses data analysis techniques to determine the user's current body clock time.
David does teach using neural networks to set the lighting based on a variety of parameters.
Heller teaches wherein said driver uses data analysis techniques to determine the user's current body clock time (¶49).
Determining the user’s body clock time allows for lighting to be used to work in conjunction with a user’s circadian rhythm more effectively, producing a better physiological response (e.g., optimized melatonin or cortisol levels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify David and Pelutri with Heller’s teachings to optimize the user’s biological response.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art considered: US 20190041699 A1 teaching low blue light displays with a cyan LED couple with red and green quantum dots, and a violet LED coupled with red and green quantum dots.
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 GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/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, 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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
1 The spectral profiles of light emitted by white artificial lighting can impact circadian physiology, alertness, and cognitive performance levels. Bright artificial light can be used in a number of therapeutic applications, such as in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD), certain sleep problems, depression, jet lag, sleep disturbances in those with Parkinson's disease, the health consequences associated with shift work, and the resetting of the human circadian clock. Artificial lighting may change natural processes, interfere with melatonin production, or disrupt the circadian rhythm. Blue light may have a greater tendency than other colored light to affect living organisms through the disruption of their biological processes which can rely upon natural cycles of daylight and darkness. Exposure to blue light late in the evening and at night may be detrimental to one's health. Some blue or royal blue light within lower wavelengths can have hazardous effects to human eyes and skin, such as causing damage to the retina.