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 § 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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westermarck US 2024/0360966 in view of Nakamura JP 2015-170565.
As for claim 1, Westermarck discloses a lighting device, comprising: an elongate carrier (26, Fig 1-4); an arrangement of LEDs 25 along a length direction of the elongate carrier (see Fig 1-4) a light transmissive housing (transparent elongated top cover 32 of LED light tube 10, see paragraph 0027, Fig 3) around the carrier (see Fig 3 and 5); wherein the arrangement of LEDs comprises at least first and second outer rows of LEDs extending along the length direction (see 25, Fig 1; shows outer rows of LEDs), and at least one inner row of LEDs between the first and second outer rows of LEDs (see inner, middle row of LEDs 25, Fig 1), wherein the pitch of the LEDs along the at least one inner row is greater than the pitch of the LEDs along the first and second outer rows; wherein the light transmissive housing having a tube (paragraph 0027, see also 32, Fig 5).
Westermarck further teaches LEDs that can be nonuniformly spaced apart on a substrate (claim 8) and further teaches that a first sub-plurality of LEDs may be spaced closely together and a second sub-plurality may be spaced a greater distance apart (see claim 9), but fails to specifically recite the arrangement being such that the pitch of the LEDs along the at least one inner row is greater than the pitch of the LEDs along the first and second outer rows. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to the teachings of Westermarck and rearrange the sub-pluralities such that there is an inner sub-plurality of LEDs with a greater pitch than the pitch of two outer sub-pluralities as outer rows on the substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to rearrange the LED configuration in this manner to achieve an alternate, desired illumination pattern for the elongated lighting device.
Westermarck also fails to teach the light transmissive housing comprising a tube having a wall thickness adjacent the sides of the carrier which is greater than the wall thickness faced by the LEDs on the carrier.
Nakamura teaches the light transmissive housing comprising a tube (20, Fig 1, page 4), the tube has a wall thickness adjacent the sides of the carrier which is greater than the wall thickness faced by the LEDs on the carrier (see thickness of walls in 20 near carrier 11 compared to thickness of face opposing light emitter 12, Fig 2; second half of p. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the teachings of Nakamura and utilize the light transmissive housing comprising a tube having wall thickness adjacent the sides of the carrier which is greater than the wall thickness faced by the LEDs on the carrier to achieve an alternate light-emission pattern. One would have been motivated to make this combination/modification where having the collapse of light suppressed will suppressing a decrease in light transmittance at a position between the front part and the side part is desired (see bottom of page 5, Nakamura).
As for claim 2, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the at least one inner row of LEDs is along a centerline of the carrier (see central row of LEDS 25, Figures 1 and 4).
As for claim 4, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the tube has a circular cross-sectional shape (see 20, Fig 5).
As for claim 5, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the tube is made of plastic or glass (paragraph 0028).
As for claim 6, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the carrier 26 is mounted against an inner surface of the tube away from a central axis of the tube (via 42 and other portions that connect to tube as shown in Fig 5, which are shown as being away from the central axis of the tube).
As for claim 8, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the carrier comprises a printed circuit board (26, paragraph 0025), and the lighting device further comprises a heat sink to which the printed circuit board is attached (heat sink patterns on lower side of PCB, see paragraph 0014, Fig 6A).
As for claim 10, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises a tubular LED (LED light tube 20, paragraph 0002, Fig 1-4).
As for claim 11, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises a linear luminaire (see linear arrangement of LEDs 25 on substrate 26, Fig 1 and 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westermarck in view of Nakamura, and further in view of Yuan US 2016/0334066.
As for claim 9, Westermarck discloses the lighting device of claim 8, but is silent to teaching the heat sink is aluminum. Yuan teaches an LED carrier that has an aluminum heat sink (see paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to Yuan and use aluminum as the heat sink material in Westermarck to provide a suitable, light-weight material with known heat-dissipation properties to further improve heat-dissipation in the lighting device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the modification of the device such that rearranging to have a pitch of LEDs along an inner row greater than a pitch of LEDs along first and second outer rows is not considered persuasive. Westermarck teaches various spacing configurations for the LED pluralities and rearranging LEDs to achieve a desired illuminating effect is considered within the realm of one having ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it does appear that Westermarck shows and example of this in Fig 9 which shows a center LED with spacing that would be further apart than adjacent LEDs when compared to the outermost arrangements of LEDs (given that 82 is a fixed distance of the substrate rather than the entirety of the substrate, see paragraph 0033).
Conclusion
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 Evan P Dzierzynski whose telephone number is (571)272-2336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm PST.
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.
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875