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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment, filed on June 17 of 2025, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. No claim has been cancelled. Claims 2-16 have been added. Claims 1-16 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 9 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification have overcome the objections detailed in sections 2-6 of the previous Office Action (mailed December 17, 2025).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because they appear to be narrative in form using overly intricate, verbose or redundant language which might be considered unclear, and include many grammatical, syntax, and/or typographical errors. See proposed claim amendment, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section (b)
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Dependent claim 2 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations “the aesthetic circuitry” (see line 1) and “the display circuitry” (see lines 1 and 2). It is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “aesthetic circuitry support”, or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “aesthetic circuitry”); and whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “display circuitry support”, or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “display circuitry”). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 2 as attempting to recite the previously defined “aesthetic circuitry support” as including an “aesthetic circuitry having aesthetic accent LEDs electrically coupled thereto”, and the previously defined “display circuitry support” as including a “display circuitry having display LEDs electrically coupled thereto”.
Dependent claims 3-8 are rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite dependent claim 2, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 3 is indefinite as the recitation “the light support is structu5rally configured to mount to a vertical support” (see lines 1 and 2), appears to rely on elements external to the invention (i.e., the “vertical support”) to define structural features of the claimed invention. It is not clear, from the context of the claim, how could one skilled in the art, at the time the invention was made, determined whether a Prior Art device would infringe on applicant’s invention, without first knowing the structure of the recited “vertical support.” The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “illumination device” defined by claim 2, from which claim 3 directly depends, as inherently configured as claimed, as long as the “display light” is isolated from the “aesthetic light”.
Dependent claims 4-8 are further rejected for their dependency on indefinite dependent claim 3, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 4 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations “the support structure” (see line 2). It is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “vertical support” (see claim 3, line 2), or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “support structure”). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the newly recited “support structure” as being one and the same as the previously defined “vertical support”.
Dependent claim 4 is further indefinite as the recitation “the light support is configured to orthogonally couple to the support structure” (see lines 1 and 2), appears to rely on elements external to the invention (i.e., the “support structure/vertical support”) to define structural features of the claimed invention. It is not clear, from the context of the claim, how could one skilled in the art, at the time the invention was made, determined whether a Prior Art device would infringe on applicant’s invention, without first knowing the structure of the recited “support structure/vertical support.” The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “illumination device” defined by claim 3, from which claim 4 directly depends, as inherently configured as claimed.
Dependent claim 10 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations “the aesthetic circuitry” (see line 1) and “the display circuitry” (see line 1). It is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “aesthetic circuitry support”, or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “aesthetic circuitry”); and whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “display circuitry support”, or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “display circuitry”). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 10 as attempting to recite the previously defined “aesthetic circuitry support” as including an “aesthetic circuitry having aesthetic accent LEDs electrically coupled thereto”, and the previously defined “display circuitry support” as including a “display circuitry having display LEDs electrically coupled thereto”.
Dependent claims 11-16 are rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite dependent claim 10, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 11 is indefinite as the recitation “the light support is structurally configured to mount to a vertical support” (see lines 1 and 2), appears to rely on elements external to the invention (i.e., the “vertical support”) to define structural features of the claimed invention. It is not clear, from the context of the claim, how could one skilled in the art, at the time the invention was made, determined whether a Prior Art device would infringe on applicant’s invention, without first knowing the structure of the recited “vertical support.” The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “illumination device” defined by claim 10, from which claim 11 directly depends, as inherently configured as claimed, as long as the “display light” is isolated from the “aesthetic light”.
Dependent claims 12-16 are further rejected for their dependency on indefinite dependent claim 11, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 12 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations “the support structure” (see line 2). It is not clear, from the context of the claim, whether the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously defined “vertical support” (see claim 11, line 2), or introducing a new structural element (i.e. a “support structure”). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the newly recited “support structure” as being one and the same as the previously defined “vertical support”.
Dependent claim 12 is further indefinite as the recitation “the light support is configured to orthogonally couple to the support structure” (see lines 1 and 2), appears to rely on elements external to the invention (i.e., the “support structure/vertical support”) to define structural features of the claimed invention. It is not clear, from the context of the claim, how could one skilled in the art, at the time the invention was made, determined whether a Prior Art device would infringe on applicant’s invention, without first knowing the structure of the recited “support structure/vertical support.” The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “illumination device” defined by claim 11, from which claim 12 directly depends, as inherently configured as claimed.
Section (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claim 3 attempts to further define the “light support” of previous claim 2 as “structurally configured to mount to a vertical support, thereby isolating the emitted display light from the emitted aesthetic light”; however, the “light device” claim 2 is already inherently configured as claimed, and defined as arranged such that the “display light” is isolated from the “aesthetic light” (e.g., such “lights” as emitted in opposite directions). The “light device” of claim 3 appears to be substantially identical, in structure and function, to that defined by previous claim 2 (from which claim 3 directly depends).
Dependent claim 11 attempts to further define the “light support” of previous claim 10 as “structurally configured to mount to a vertical support, thereby isolating the emitted display light from the emitted aesthetic light”; however, the “light device” claim 10 is already inherently configured as claimed, and defined as arranged such that the “display light” is isolated from the “aesthetic light” (e.g., such “lights” as emitted in opposite directions). The “light device” of claim 11 appears to be substantially identical, in structure and function, to that defined by previous claim 10 (from which claim 11 directly depends).
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 1. A multidirectional light device
a display circuitry support having a display circuitry with display LEDs electrically coupled thereto;[[ and]]
an aesthetic circuitry support having an aesthetic circuitry with aesthetic accent LEDs electrically coupled thereto, wherein the display circuitry support and the aesthetic circuitry support are relatively oriented to emit display light and accent light in different directions; and
a light support positioned between the emitted display light direction and the emitted accent light direction that limits interaction and maintains the emitted display light from the emitted accent light.
CLAIM 2. The light device of claim I. wherein the aesthetic circuitry and the display circuitry are positioned on opposite sides of the light support and thus emit the accent light and the display light in opposite directions.
CLAIM 3.
CLAIM 4. The light device of claim [[3]]2,wherein the light support is configured to orthogonally couple to [[the]]a support structure, and further include opposing sections configured to extend parallel to the support structure, whereby the display circuitry support is coupled to the positioned to hide the display circuitry support from view
CLAIM 9. A system for displaying
a display circuitry support having a display circuitry with display LEDs electrically coupled thereto;[[ and]]
an aesthetic circuitry support having an aesthetic circuitry with aesthetic accent LEDs electrically coupled thereto, wherein the display circuitry support and the aesthetic circuitry support are relatively oriented to emit display light and accent light in different directions; and
a light support positioned between the emitted display light direction and the emitted accent light direction that limits interaction and maintains the emitted display light from the emitted accent light.
CLAIM 10. The system of claim 9,wherein the aesthetic circuitry and the display circuitry are positioned on opposite sides of the light support and thus emit the accent light and the display light in opposite directions.
CLAIM 11.
CLAIM 12. The system of claim [[11]]10,wherein the light support is configured to orthogonally couple to [[the]]a support structure, and further include opposing sections configured to extend parallel to the support structure, whereby the display circuitry support is coupled to the
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN DE SLUIS et al. (International Pat. Pub. WO 2021/074358).
VAN DE SLUIS et al. discloses a multidirectional light device 100 (as seen in Figure 1a) displaying decorative and aesthetic light 140/150 (as seen in Figure 1a) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1a), including a display circuitry support 121 (as seen in Figure 1a) having display LEDs 120 (as seen in Figure 1a) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device); an aesthetic circuitry support 131 (as seen in Figure 1a) having aesthetic accent LEDs 130 (as seen in Figure 1a) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device), wherein the display circuitry support 121 and the aesthetic circuitry support 131 are relatively oriented to emit display light 140 (as seen in Figure 1a) and accent light 150 (as seen in Figure 1a) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1a); a light support 100 (as seen in Figure 1a) positioned between the emitted display light 140 direction (upward direction, as seen in Figure 1a) and the emitted accent light 150 direction (side direction, as seen in Figure 1a) that limits interaction and maintains the emitted display light 140 from the emitted accent light 150 (as seen in Figure 1a).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN BERGMAN et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,149,925).
Regarding independent claim 1, BERGMAN et al. discloses a multidirectional light device 100 (as seen in Figure 1B) displaying decorative and aesthetic light 1/2 (as seen in Figure 1B) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1B), including a display circuitry support 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) having display LEDs 401 (as seen in Figure 1B) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device); an aesthetic circuitry support 220 (as seen in Figure 1B) having aesthetic accent LEDs 402 (as seen in Figure 1B) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device), wherein the display circuitry support 210 and the aesthetic circuitry support 220 are relatively oriented to emit display light 1 (as seen in Figure 1B) and accent light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1B); a light support 200 (as seen in Figure 1B) positioned between the emitted display light 1 direction (upward direction, as seen in Figure 1B) and the emitted accent light 2 direction (side direction, as seen in Figure 1B) that limits interaction and maintains the emitted display light 1 from the emitted accent light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 2 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the aesthetic circuitry 220 (as seen in Figure 1B) and the display circuitry 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) are positioned on opposite sides of the display circuitry support 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) and thus emit the accent light 2 and the display light 1 in opposite directions (downward and upward directions, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 3 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 is structurally configured to mount to a vertical support 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), thereby isolating the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 is configured to orthogonally couple to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B) and further include opposing sections 500 (upper and lower portions of element 500, as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the orthogonal section of the light support 200 (as seen in Figure 1B) and the opposing sections 500 are positioned to hide the display circuitry support 210 from view and further isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the display circuitry support 210 is configured to couple to the light support 200 at a position orthogonal to the support structure 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) and further includes a single orthogonal section 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the orthogonal section 500 of the light support 200 and the orthogonal section 500 of the light support 200 is positioned to isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 6 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the single orthogonal section 500 is oriented downward from the light support 200 (lower portion of element 500 extends downwardly, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 7 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the single orthogonal section 500 is oriented upward from the light support 200 (upper portion of element 500 extends upwardly, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 8 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 further includes a single orthogonal section 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the light support 200 section 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) that is orthogonal to the support surface 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), and the light support 200 is positioned to isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Regarding independent claim 9, BERGMAN et al. discloses a system 100 (as seen in Figure 1B) for displaying decorative and aesthetic light 1/2 (as seen in Figure 1B) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1B), including a display circuitry support 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) having display LEDs 401 (as seen in Figure 1B) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device); an aesthetic circuitry support 220 (as seen in Figure 1B) having aesthetic accent LEDs 402 (as seen in Figure 1B) electrically coupled thereto (required for operation of the disclosed device), wherein the display circuitry support 210 and the aesthetic circuitry support 220 are relatively oriented to emit display light 1 (as seen in Figure 1B) and accent light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B) in different directions (as seen in Figure 1B); a light support 200 (as seen in Figure 1B) positioned between the emitted display light 1 direction (upward direction, as seen in Figure 1B) and the emitted accent light 2 direction (side direction, as seen in Figure 1B) that limits interaction and maintains the emitted display light 1 from the emitted accent light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 10 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the aesthetic circuitry 220 (as seen in Figure 1B) and the display circuitry 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) are positioned on opposite sides of the display circuitry support 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) and thus emit the accent light 2 and the display light 1 in opposite directions (downward and upward directions, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 11 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 is structurally configured to mount to a vertical support 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), thereby isolating the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 12 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 is configured to orthogonally couple to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B) and further include opposing sections 500 (upper and lower portions of element 500, as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the orthogonal section of the light support 200 (as seen in Figure 1B) and the opposing sections 500 are positioned to hide the display circuitry support 210 from view and further isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 13 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the display circuitry support 210 is configured to couple to the light support 200 at a position orthogonal to the support structure 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) and further includes a single orthogonal section 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the orthogonal section 500 of the light support 200 and the orthogonal section 500 of the light support 200 is positioned to isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 14 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the single orthogonal section 500 is oriented downward from the light support 200 (lower portion of element 500 extends downwardly, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 15 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the single orthogonal section 500 is oriented upward from the light support 200 (upper portion of element 500 extends upwardly, as seen in Figure 1B).
Regarding dependent claim 16 (as best understood), BERGMAN et al. further discloses the light support 200 further includes a single orthogonal section 500 (as seen in Figure 1B) extending parallel to the support structure 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), whereby the display circuitry support 210 is coupled to the light support 200 section 210 (as seen in Figure 1B) that is orthogonal to the support surface 300 (as seen in Figure 1B), and the light support 200 is positioned to isolate the emitted display light 1 from the emitted aesthetic light 2 (as evidenced by Figure 1B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed June 17 of 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN DE SLUIS et al. (International Pat. Pub. WO 2021/074358), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically a “light support” positioned between the emitted display light direction and the emitted accent light direction, to limit interaction and maintain the emitted display light from the emitted accent light.
Regarding newly added claims 2-16, the applicant present no arguments, except stating that such claims depend directly, or indirectly, from independent claim 1, and would be allowable when/if the independent claim is allowed. Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically traverse such rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), has been interpreted as an admission that the individual features added by claims 2-16 fail to further distinguish the subject matter defined by the independent claims over the Prior Art already made of record.
In response to applicant’s arguments that VAN DE SLUIS et al. (International Pat. Pub. WO 2021/074358) fails to disclose a “light support” positioned between the emitted display light direction and the emitted accent light direction, the applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004).
In this case, as previously detailed, VAN DE SLUIS et al. clearly discloses, in Figure 1a, a light support 200 positioned between the emitted display light 1 direction (upward direction) and the emitted accent light 2 direction (side direction), such support 200 limiting interaction between and keeping the emitted display light 1 from the emitted accent light 2 (as seen in Figure 1B).
In addition, note newly added reference BERGMAN et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,149,925), on which a rejection of all newly added claims has been presented.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights