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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Shibata, JP 2007/335101 A, hereinafter “Shibata”).
Regarding Claim 1, Shibata discloses an illumination device comprising:
a light source part (“fluorescent lamp 9 as a light source”; “straight tube fluorescent lamp 9”) configured to emit light to a floor surface of a room (“installed on a wall 11 of a room”; “irradiated from the lower space … near the floor of the room”);
a light distribution area setter (JP teaches “light shielding plate 2” that “partially shields” and “distributes … in two directions”; “arrangement position moves”) configured to set a light distribution area of light from the light source part to a first light distribution area or a second light distribution area different from the first light distribution area (JP teaches switching “downward irradiation” vs “upward irradiation” and intermediate ratios at positions P1–P5; i.e., different distribution states); and
a controller (“control unit 20”; CPU/ROM/RAM; “pulse motor control unit 26”; “controls … arrangement position of the light shielding plate”) configured to control the light distribution area setter so that light is emitted to the first light distribution area and the second light distribution area in a time-division manner (JP teaches time-based switching by “clock unit 25” + “time zone” control data; switching positions at times like 15:00, 16:00, 19:00, etc.; NOT explicit high-frequency time-division / alternating between two areas within a short cycle),
wherein the second light distribution area set by the light distribution area setter includes a part closer to a corner of the floor surface than the first light distribution area (JP: by installing the above lighting device on the wall of the room, etc., the light from the light source can be directly illuminated from the lower space to the middle space near the floor of the room (away from the corner) and the upper layer from the middle space to the ceiling of the room (closer to the corner of the floor surface)).
Regarding claim 8, Shibata discloses the illumination device according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the light distribution area setter so that a time during which light is emitted to the first light distribution area is different from a time during which light is emitted to the second light distribution area (JP: “time zone” dependent switching of distribution states; it implies different durations across the day).
Regarding claim 13, Shibata discloses the illumination device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first storage configured to store light distribution area data corresponding to a plurality of kinds of light distribution areas including the first light distribution area and the second light distribution area (JP: stores control software/data in “ROM 22” and uses predefined arrangement positions P1–P5 with defined distribution ratios; the multiple preset distribution states exists); and
a second storage configured to store a light distribution area pattern combining the kinds of light distribution areas (JP: stores “illumination control program” with “preset illumination control data including a time zone, a light shielding plate arrangement position, and a dimming level”; i.e., a pattern/schedule over time),
wherein the controller combines the kinds of light distribution areas stored in the first storage (JP: selection of arrangement positions across time zones; “illumination control data … composed of … time zone … arrangement position …”),
stores the combination in the second storage as the light distribution area pattern (JP: the “illumination control program” stored in ROM; “stores … illumination control data … for 24 hours / one day”), and
controls the light distribution area setter based on the light distribution area pattern stored in the second storage (JP: “based on time acquired from clock unit 25 … instructing the pulse motor control unit 26 … using illumination control data” in a given storage).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, as applied above.
Regarding claim 3, Shibata discloses all of the limitation as claimed except the first light distribution area is similar to the second light distribution area in shape with a different size. Shibata discloses directional distribution (up/down) and ratios (100/0 … 0/100) rather than same-shape scaling.
However, this limitation is not of the patentable merits since the light distribution area could be any area including the size that is in shape of another size. Therefore, it would have been held obvious of ordinary skill in the art to provide the illumination of the lighting device with the shape that is of different size.
Accordingly, employing the lighting device of Shibata with the controller controls the light distribution area setter so that the light distribution area has different size of a given shape is deemed as obvious to one having kill in the art.
Same rejection is applied to claim 4 for having a circle and an ellipse as design choice of the illumination.
Same rejection is applied to claim 5 for having a different radius is an elliptical shape of compared to the diameter of a circle, which is of common sense of the shape difference by in large.
Same rejection is applied to claim 6, wherein the light distribution area setter changes light from the light source part so that the ends of the major radius of the ellipse distribution area face corners of the floor surface, as a design choice limitation.
Same rejection is applied to claim 7 which the time of light is emitted to the first light distribution area is equal to a time during which light is emitted to the second light distribution area, as a fixed design choice.
Same rejection is applied to claim 12 which one cycle of control occurs 50 times or more per second, Shibata discloses pulse motor control + scheduled time zones; absent of specific control cycle frequency; however, it is not patentable matter and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to create the design constraint to be more than 50 times per second.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on (571) 270-7101. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
1/24/2026