DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 12/08/2025. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 1-36 were previously canceled;
Claims 37-64 are canceled;
Claims 65-80 are newly added; and thus
Claims 65-80 are pending;
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 § 112
The rejection to claims 39-46, 49-56 and 63-64 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
The rejection to claims 37-56 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
Double Patenting
The rejection to claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,638,340B2 is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
The rejection to claim 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,997,769B2 is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
The rejection to claim 39 and 49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,638,340 is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
The rejection to claim 47 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,769B2 is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
The rejection to claim 58-64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,769B2 in view of the prior art rejection is moot in view of cancellation of corresponding claims.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 65 and 80 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,583B2 in view of the prior art rejection below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,064,583B2
Claim 65. A lighting system comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution;
one or more driver circuits coupled to the light-emitting elements; and
at least one controller configured such that, in response to a single dimming input,(a) total lumen output of the lighting system decreases, and(b) an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) of emitted light increases relative to its value at full lumen output.
9. A light emitting device comprising:
at least 2 LED emitters;
at least one internal controller;
a plurality of driver circuits configured to independently drive the plurality of LED emitters via the at least one internal controller;
programming logic configured to increase the lumen output of at least one emitter while simultaneously decreasing the lumen output of at least one other emitter, such that total color gamut increases while total lumen output of the light emitting device decreases; and wherein
the light emitting device is further configured to linearly increase an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) as lumen output decreases.
Claim 80. A method of operating a lighting system comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution, the method comprising:
receiving a single dimming input;
decreasing total lumen output of the lighting system in response to the input; and
concurrently increasing the IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) relative to its value at full lumen output.
Claim 1. A method of increasing the color gamut of a multi-emitter light emitting device when dimming, comprising:
independently driving each emitter in the device; increasing the lumen output of at least one emitter while simultaneously decreasing the lumen output of at least one other emitter, such that
total color gamut increases while total lumen output of the light emitting device decreases; and linearly increasing an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) as lumen output decreases
Claims 65 and 80 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 1, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,638,340B2 in view of the prior art rejection below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,638,340B2
Claim 65. A lighting system comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution;
one or more driver circuits coupled to the light-emitting elements; and
at least one controller configured such that, in response to a single dimming input,(a) total lumen output of the lighting system decreases, and(b) an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) of emitted light increases relative to its value at full lumen output.
Claim 17. A light emitting device comprising:
at least 2 LED emitters;
at least one internal controller;
a plurality of driver circuits configured to independently drive the plurality of LED emitters via the at least one internal controller; and
programming logic configured to increase the lumen output of at least one emitter while simultaneously decreasing the lumen output of at least one other emitter, such that total color gamut of objects illuminated by the light emitting device increases while total lumen output of the light emitting device decreases.
Claim 80. A method of operating a lighting system comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution, the method comprising:
receiving a single dimming input;
decreasing total lumen output of the lighting system in response to the input; and
concurrently increasing the IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) relative to its value at full lumen output.
Claim 1. A method of increasing the color gamut of objects illuminated by a multi-emitter light emitting device when dimming, comprising:
independently driving each emitter in the device; and increasing the lumen output of at least one emitter while simultaneously decreasing the lumen output of at least one other emitter, such
that total color gamut increases while total lumen output of the light emitting device decreases.
Claims 65 is are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,997,769B2 in view of the prior art rejection below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,997,769B2
Claim 65. A lighting system comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution;
one or more driver circuits coupled to the light-emitting elements; and
at least one controller configured such that, in response to a single dimming input,(a) total lumen output of the lighting system decreases, and(b) an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) of emitted light increases relative to its value at full lumen output.
Claim 1. A light emitting device comprising:
at least first and second LED emitters;
at least one controller;
at least one driver circuit connected to the first and second LED emitters, configured to independently drive the at first and second LED emitters via the at least one controller; and
programming logic executing on the at least one controller, configured to increase the lumen output of the first emitter while simultaneously decreasing the lumen output of the second emitter, such that total color gamut of the light emitting device increases while total lumen output of the light emitting device decreases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 65-70, 76 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2008/0164823A1 hereinafter “Huang”
Regarding claim 65, Huang discloses a lighting system comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution (¶19L1-20: a light source configuring at least one WLED and at least one multicolored LED);
one or more driver circuits (¶19L1-20: a driving control system) coupled to the light-emitting elements (as shown in Fig.1A for example); and
at least one controller (¶8L34-37: a data processing system for automatically control of the driving control system according to the control parameter) configured such that, in response to a single dimming input (¶8L31-33: user manual control comprises input setting a second setting value of NTSC value),
(a) total lumen output of the lighting system decreases (¶21L9-12: decreasing the light radiation flux of at least one WLEDs) (Note: since only flux of WLED is decreased, the total output is decreased), and
(b) an IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) of emitted light increases relative to its value at full lumen output. (¶21L8-12: adjusting color gamut of the lighting structure by decreasing the light radiation flux of the at least one WLEDs to increase color gamut)
Regarding claim 66, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65, wherein the at least one controller comprises
a single logical controller (¶8L34-37: a data processing system for automatically control of the driving control system according to the control parameter) that responds to a single user-initiated control action (¶8L31-33: user manual control comprises input setting a second setting value of NTSC value) to simultaneously adjust lumen output and IES TM-30-15 gamut index. (¶21L8-12: adjusting color gamut of the lighting structure by decreasing the light radiation flux of the at least one WLEDs to increase color gamut)
Regarding claim 67, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65, wherein multiple user interfaces are operably coupled to the controller, each configured to generate the same single dimming input that causes simultaneous adjustment of total lumen output and IES TM-30-15 gamut index.
Regarding claim 68, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65, wherein
the controller executes a stored mapping or algorithm defining IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) as a function of total lumen output such that Rg increases monotonically as total lumen output decreases. (¶23L1-11: driving control system comprises a memory for memorizing the setting value and data processing system contorl the LEDs according to the setting value)
Regarding claim 69, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 68, wherein
the stored mapping is implemented as a lookup table defining drive-current ratios among the light-emitting elements for each lumen output level. (¶6L13-18: high color gamut display, it is to decrease electrical driving value of WLED, wherein the electrical driving value comprises voltage and/or current.)
Regarding claim 70, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65, wherein
the system lacks any user control for color saturation, vividness, vibrancy, or gamut adjustment independent of the single dimming input. (¶8L31-33: user manual control comprises input setting a second setting value of NTSC value)
Regarding claim 76, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65, wherein
the controller adjusts drive currents such that all but one of the plurality of light-emitting element's outputs vary monotonically with the dimming input. (¶6L13-18: high color gamut display, it is to decrease electrical driving value of WLED, wherein the electrical driving value comprises voltage and/or current.)
Regarding claim 80, Huang discloses a method of operating a lighting system comprising
a plurality of light-emitting elements each emitting light having a distinct spectral power distribution (¶19L1-20: a light source configuring at least one WLED and at least one multicolored LED); the method comprising:
receiving a single dimming input (¶8L31-33: user manual control comprises input setting a second setting value of NTSC value);
decreasing total lumen output of the lighting system in response to the input (¶21L9-12: decreasing the light radiation flux of at least one WLEDs) (Note: since only flux of WLED is decreased, the total output is decreased); and
concurrently increasing the IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) relative to its value at full lumen output. (¶21L8-12: adjusting color gamut of the lighting structure by decreasing the light radiation flux of the at least one WLEDs to increase color gamut)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 71-74 and 77-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 71, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) increases by at least ten percent (10%) relative to its value at full lumen output. .
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 72, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) increases by at least twenty percent (20%) relative to its value at full lumen output.
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 73, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the controller causes the total lumen output of the lighting system to decrease by 50% and causes the Rg to increase by at least 10%.
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 74, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
correlated color temperature varies by less than +100 kelvin over the same range of lumen output.
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 75, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
at least three of the plurality of light- emitting elements each has a full-width-half-maximum spectral bandwidth less than 50 nm.
Huang does disclose that any multicolored LED combination that are able to mix up white light can be used (¶8L1-37: any multicolored LED combination that are able to mix up white light)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select LEDs that meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 77, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the relationship between total lumen output and IES TM-30-15 gamut index (Rg) is proportional and monotonic across at least 80% of the dimming range.
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 78, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the controller is configured to maintain the Duv within ±0.03 while Rg increases.
Huang does disclose in formula (1) and formula (2) on ¶13-14 that the control chrominance coordinate can be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to configure the controller control the lights to meet the claimed requirement.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the modification of intensity and color is easily achievable by driving the individual color light source different and this would allow the user to customize the preferred color/intensity of the final output.
Regarding claim 79, Huang discloses the lighting system of claim 65,
Huang does not explicitly disclose
the lighting system is implemented as a lamp, luminaire, or lighting fixture.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the backlights to meet to be used as a lamp, luminaire or lighting fixture. .
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because they are equivalent to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights