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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach to increase scattering of light from the light sources in the horizontal plane, wherein the lighting device comprises a reflector with a reflection surface having an approximately parabolic cross-section, and wherein the frosting is surface roughening. The examiner disagrees. Trenchard teaches a frosting achieved by surface roughening, and as Trenchard clearly shows in Fig. 20, such a surface roughening is well known to increase scattering of light from the light sources in the horizontal plane. Fields teaches a reflector 124, and as best shown in Fig. 5, the reflector has an approximately parabolic cross section. Insofar as Fields does not specifically use the word ‘parabola’, Roudeski (US 9016896 B1) teaches a reflector (28) having a similar function to Fields’ reflector (reflecting light from a ring of LEDs into a flat disc emission profile) and specifies that a parabolic cross-section is suitable for this purpose.
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 1-10, 12-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields et al. (US 2011/0235322 A1) in view of Mayollet (US 2019/0219247 A1), Trenchard et al. (US 2006/0250801 A1), and Roudeski (US 9016896 B1).
With respect to claim 1: Fields teaches a lighting device (100), having a base (103) on which a group (122’s in 110) of a plurality of light sources (122) is arranged in a horizontal plane (see Fig. 3), and a transparent cover (118) which surrounds the light sources (see Figs. 1-5) and is designed to protect the light sources from environmental influences (see Figs. 1-5), wherein at least some of the light sources are arranged eccentrically (see Fig. 3) to a zenith axis (going through the center of the rings 110, 112, 114, 116) orthogonal to the horizontal plane (see Fig. 3), which defines a vertical direction (see Fig. 3), the cover comprises a frosted internal space and/or outer side (paragraph 40), wherein the lighting device comprises a reflector (124) with a reflection surface (see Fig. 5).
Fields does not specifically teach “wherein the frosting is directed in the vertical direction”.
However, Mayollet teaches “wherein the frosting (32) is directed in the vertical direction (paragraph 96)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by directing the frosting in the vertical direction as taught by Mayollet in order to permit the light to be scattered uniformly in the radial direction (Mayollet paragraph 96).
Fields does not explicitly teach that the frosting increases scattering of light from the light sources in the horizontal plane or that the frosting is surface roughening.
However, Trenchard teaches surface roughened frosting (paragraph 75) that increases scattering of light from the light sources in the horizontal plane (see Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by using surface roughening as the frosting as taught by Trenchard in order to make the emitted light more uniform (Trenchard paragraph 76).
Fields is not explicit as to whether or nor the cross section of the reflector 124 is parabolic or not.
However, Roudeski teaches a lighting device with a parabolic (column 4 lines 57-62) reflector 28.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by using a parabolic reflector as taught by Roudeski due to the art recognized suitability of a parabolic reflector for the purpose of providing an emission profile appropriate for use as an aviation obstruction light (Roudeski column 2 lines 24-30).
With respect to claim 2: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, the light sources of the group of light sources are arranged on a circular line or partial circular line around the zenith axis at equal angular intervals (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 3: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, the light sources of the group of light sources comprise overlapping radiation areas in the horizontal plane (paragraph 45; see Fig. 8b)”.
With respect to claim 4: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “the light sources are designed in such way that they emit light over an angular range of at least 45° (see Fig. 8b)”.
With respect to claim 5: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “the light sources are light-emitting diodes (paragraph 31)”.
With respect to claim 6: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “the group of light sources comprises at least 3 light sources (see Fig. 3)”. With respect to claim 7: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “the group of light sources comprises at least 3 light sources (see Fig. 3)”.
Fields teaches “the light sources or the lighting device emit a total of red light in a wavelength range of at least 605 nm and not more than 780 nm and/or infrared light in a wavelength range of at least 780 nm and not more than 3000 nm (paragraph 31)”.
With respect to claim 8: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “an optical element (124) is provided for directing the light emitted by the light sources onto the cover, which is designed to focus the light into the vertical direction (paragraph 30), wherein the optical element - a plurality of individual optics (see Fig. 3), wherein each individual optics being assigned to one of the light sources and being adapted to focus the light emitted by one of the light sources in the vertical direction (paragraph 30), the individual optics covering and surrounding a light emitting region of one of the light sources (see Fig. 3), or - a common reflector or refractor designed to focus the light emitted by several or all of the light sources in the vertical direction”.
With respect to claim 9: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “Lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields is silent about “the frosting of the cover is formed by sandblasting or compressed air blasting with another solid blasting abrasive or grinding or etching”.
However, Trenchard teaches a lighting device (10) with a frosted cover (88) in which sandblasting is taught to be a suitable method for frosting the cover (paragraph 75)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by sandblasting the cover as taught by Trenchard due to the art recognized suitability of that method for the purpose of creating a diffusive pattern on the surface of the cover (Trenchard paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 10: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, the frosting is formed with structures in the dimension of at least 0.1 µm (paragraph 40) and/or with structures in the dimension of not more than 1 µm”.
With respect to claim 12: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, a plurality of groups of light sources are provided (110, 112, 114, 116), each arranged in a horizontal plane (see Fig. 1), the horizontal planes of the groups being spaced parallel along the zenith axis (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 13: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “the base comprises a surface (102) formed along the horizontal plane (see Fig. 3), on which the light sources of the or a group of light sources are arranged (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 14: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, the base comprises a cylindrical or part-cylindrical surface formed along the zenith axis or a plurality of flat surfaces formed parallel to the zenith axis, on which the light sources are arranged (see Fig. 3)”.
With respect to claim 15: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “characterized in that, the cover is made of a polyacrylic or polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate or polymethacrylmethylimide or polystyrene or styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer or cycloolefin copolymer or quartz glass or another mineral glass (paragraph 40)”.
With respect to claim 18: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “Lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields does not specifically teach “wherein the surface roughening is applied to an inner and/or outer surface of the transparent cover”.
However, Trenchard teaches “wherein the surface roughening is applied to an inner and/or outer surface of the transparent cover (paragraph 75)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by surface roughening the cover as taught by Trenchard due to the art recognized suitability of that method for the purpose of creating a diffusive pattern on the surface of the cover (Trenchard paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 19: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 18 (see above)”.
Fields teaches “wherein the surface roughening is formed with structures that are large enough to have a scattering effect on light from the light sources (see Figs. 8a, 8b) but not so large that they bundle or defocus the light (see Figs. 9a, 9b)”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer (US 2009/0086492 A1).
With respect to claim 16: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “Lighting device according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Fields does not specifically teach “an internal space within the cover is filled with a translucent potting compound, the potting compound enclosing particularly the light sources and/or the base”.
However, Meyer teaches “an internal space (26) within the cover (20) is filled with a translucent potting compound (paragraph 15), the potting compound enclosing particularly the light sources (40) and/or the base”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by potting the internal space within the cover as taught by Meyer in order to provide an additional thermal path away from the LEDs and provide additional diffusion and coloring (Meyer paragraph 15).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski as applied to claims 1, 18-19 above, and further in view of Grey (US 2007/0218255 A1).
With respect to claim 20: Fields in view of Mayollet, Trenchard, and Roudeski teaches “lighting device according to claim 19 (see above)”.
Fields does not specifically teach “wherein dimensions of the structures of the surface roughening are based on the wavelength of the light from the light sources”.
However, Grey teaches “wherein dimensions of the structures of the surface roughening are based on the wavelength of the light from the light sources (paragraph 45)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lighting device of Fields by basing the dimensions of the structures on the wavelengths of light from the light sources as taught by Grey so as to achieve the desired decorative effect (Grey paragraph 45).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875