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 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Bommel (WO 2021018813 A1) in view of Kawamura (WO 2021010077 A1); Genier US 2015/0131306 is provided as documentary evidence.
As to claim 1, Van Bommel teaches an LED filament for providing LED filament light (see the abstract, figures 1a, 1b; item 30) comprising: an elongated carrier (page 9, lines 3-5 and lines 20-21; item 30 is an elongated structure as shown in figures 1a, 1b); and a plurality of light emitting diodes arranged on the elongated carrier (page 9, lines 6-8), wherein the LED filament is arranged in a coiled-coil configuration (figures 1a, 1b), and wherein the coiled-coil configuration comprises a primary coil having a primary diameter D1 (figures 1a, 1b), which primary coil is coiled into a secondary coil having a secondary diameter D2.
Van Bommel does not disclose that the LED filament has a coiled-coil configuration in which the primary coil is coiled into a secondary coil having a secondary diameter D2. Van Bommel however notes that the LED filament “may be arranged in a straight configuration or in a non-straight configuration such as for example a curved configuration, a 2D/3D spiral or a helix.” Van Bommel therefore discloses that spiral configurations are known in the art, as shown in figures 1a and 1b, and also that it is known to use different shapes with the filament.
Kawamura teaches that light filaments may be arranged in a coiled-coil (double coiled) configuration, in which the primary coil has a first diameter and is coiled into a secondary coil with a second diameter (See annotated figure 1 below). Kawamura (abstract) further teaches that “by forming the filament in a double coil shape, it is possible to maintain a desired light emitting portion size without being affected by changes in the diameter and number of wires constituting the filament, so that the light irradiation region can be set. It is also possible to control to a desired range.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Van Bommel with a coiled-coil configuration in which the primary coil is coiled into a secondary coil having a secondary diameter, as taught by Kawamura, since such a configuration may help to control the desired range of the light filament (as suggested by Kawamura in the abstract).
Van Bommel further teaches the plurality of light emitting diodes are covered by an elongated encapsulant and teaches luminescent material in the encapsulant that may be used to convert light from the LEDs (see page 2 lines 30+). Although Van Bommel is silent to teaching this being done with blue or UV LEDs, the examiner takes Official Notice that blue or UV LEDs are well known to be used in lighting devices to achieve other wavelengths of light. See Genier for evidence of this with UV LEDs (paragraph 0043). In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the UV light sources of Genier to convert UV light to a desired light using the luminescent material in the encapsulant layer to achieve a desired illumination pattern or effect in Van Bommel.
PNG
media_image1.png
1251
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claims 2-5, Van Bommel in view of Kawamura teach the LED filament according to claim 1; Kawamura further teaches variations in the sizing of the first and second diameters (see pages 4, 5 and tables in Figures 4 and 5); but is silent to specifically reciting that the primary diameter D1 is in the range from 4 mm to 12 mm (claim 2); the secondary diameter D2 is in the range from 4D1 to 12D1 (claim 3); the primary coil comprises Ni primary loops and the secondary coil comprises N2 secondary loops, and wherein N1>=5-N2 (claim 4), the secondary coil has a secondary pitch P2 in the range from 2D1 to 10D1 (claim 5). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter such that the primary diameter D1 is in the range from 4 mm to 12 mm and the secondary diameter D2 is in the range from 4D1 to 12D1, to achieve an alternately dimensioned configuration for the LED filament; additionally, it also would have been obvious to modify the device such that the primary coil comprises Ni primary loops and the secondary coil comprises N2 secondary loops, and wherein N1>=5-N2 and the secondary coil has a secondary pitch P2 in the range from 2D1 to 10D1, 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 modify the dimensions to achieve an alternately dimensioned coil to achieve a desirable luminous output in the device of Van Bommel in view of Kawamura.
As for claims 8 and 9, the combination of Van Bommel in view of Kawamura further comprising a ductile element arranged along at least a major portion of the length of the elongated carrier for allowing the LED filament to be shaped (the combination in view of Kawamura utilizes a wire element as the carrier which is interpreted as a ductile element that allows the carrier to be shaped and maintain its form; see 3 in figures 1 and 2, Kawamura) (claim 8); the ductile element is configured to allow the LED filament to be shaped from a basic shape into a first coiled shape corresponding to said primary coil and/or a second coiled shape corresponding to said secondary coil, and wherein the first coiled shape and the second coiled shape are dimensionally stable (see configuration having a coiled coil shape in Fig 1 Kawamura; page 4 of Kawamura teaches a configuration of the wire having shape stability).
As for claim 10, Van Bommel in view of Kawamura teach the device above; Van Bommel further teaches the primary coil wherein the primary coil is formed around and mounted to a rod (optical element 20, see Fig 1a, which is also taught as other shapes and may be cylindrical, pages 13 and 14 Van Bommel), and wherein the rod has one or more of the following properties: (i) reflective to reflect at least part of the LED filament light; (ii) light diffusive to diffuse at least part of the LED filament light; (iii) light converting to convert at least part of the LED filament light; (iv) transmissive to act as a lightguide guiding at least part of the LED filament light; and (v) thermally conductive to act as a heatsink (may be translucent or reflective, see pages 9 lines 30 through page 10 line15).
As for claim 11, Van Bommel in view of Kawamura teach the device above but fail to teach wherein the LED filament is arranged in a triple coiled coil configuration; given the teachings of Kawamura, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the configuration such that the LED filament is arranged in a triple coiled coil configuration, 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). One would have been motivated to rearrange the device to that of a triple coil to provide an alternate, aesthetically pleasing lighting device configuration for Van Bommel.
As for claim 12, Van Bommel further discloses a lamp or a luminaire comprising at least one coiled-coil LED filament according to claim 1 (see above regarding limitations of claim 1) arranged behind a light exit window (LED filament is behind bulb 61, see Fig 1a).
As for claims 13 and 14, Van Bommel further discloses a lamp or a luminaire according to claim 12, but fails to further teach wherein the at least one coiled-coil LED filament is a plurality of coiled-coil LED filaments (claim 13) and wherein the plurality of coiled-coil LED filaments comprises at least two coiled-coil LED filaments entangled (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the parts and include a plurality of the coiled coil configurations of Van Bommel in view of Kawamura for example, to achieve greater luminance, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding the at least two coiled coil configurations being entangled, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the configuration to that of entangled coiled coils, 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). One would have been motivated to rearrange the parts in this manner to achieve an aesthetically pleasing design with greater luminance.
As for claim 15, Van Bommel teaches a method of manufacturing an LED filament, comprising: providing a flexible carrier (page 9, lines 3-5 and lines 20-21; item 30 is an elongated structure as shown in figures 1a, 1b; taught as flexible lines 8-9); wherein a plurality of light emitting diodes are arranged on the flexible carrier (page 9, lines 6-8); Van Bommel teaches the flexible carrier coiled around a rod 20 to provide an LED filament (Van Bommel however notes that the LED filament “may be arranged in a straight configuration or in a non-straight configuration such as for example a curved configuration, a 2D/3D spiral or a helix.”, see Fig 1a).
Van Bommel does not disclose coiling the provided flexible carrier around a rod to provide an LED filament having a primary coil with a primary diameter D1; and coiling the LED filament having the primary coil into a secondary coil having a secondary diameter D2 to provide an LED filament having a coiled-coil configuration. Van Bommel however notes that the LED filament “may be arranged in a straight configuration or in a non-straight configuration such as for example a curved configuration, a 2D/3D spiral or a helix.” Van Bommel therefore discloses that spiral configurations are known in the art, as shown in figures 1a and 1b, and also that it is known to use different shapes with the filament. Kawamura teaches that light filaments may be arranged in a coiled-coil (double coiled) configuration, in which the primary coil has a first diameter and is coiled into a secondary coil with a second diameter (See annotated figure 1 below). Kawamura (abstract) further teaches that “by forming the filament in a double coil shape, it is possible to maintain a desired light emitting portion size without being affected by changes in the diameter and number of wires constituting the filament, so that the light irradiation region can be set. It is also possible to control to a desired range.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Van Bommel with a coiled-coil configuration such the provided flexible carrier around a rod to provide an LED filament having a primary coil with a primary diameter D1; and coiling the LED filament having the primary coil into a secondary coil having a secondary diameter D2 to provide an LED filament having a coiled-coil configuration, since such a configuration may help to control the desired range of the light filament (as suggested by Kawamura in the abstract).
Van Bommel further teaches the plurality of light emitting diodes are covered by an elongated encapsulant and teaches luminescent material in the encapsulant that may be used to convert light from the LEDs (see page 2 lines 30+). Although Van Bommel is silent to teaching this being done with blue or UV LEDs, the examiner takes Official Notice that blue or UV LEDs are well known to be used in lighting devices to achieve other wavelengths of light. See Genier for evidence of this with UV LEDs (paragraph 0043). In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the UV light sources of Genier to convert UV light to a desired light using the luminescent material in the encapsulant layer to achieve a desired illumination pattern or effect in Van Bommel.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Bommel (WO 2021018813 A1) in view of Kawamura (WO 2021010077 A1) using Genier US 2015/0131306 as evidence, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergmann US 2018/0328543.
As for claim 7, Van Bommel in view of Kawamura teach the device above but fails to further teach the plurality of light emitting diodes comprises a first set of first light emitting diodes and a second set of second light emitting diodes, wherein the first set is individually controllable in relation to the second set.
Bergmann teaches a plurality of light emitting diodes comprises a first set of first light emitting diodes and a second set of second light emitting diodes, wherein the first set is individually controllable in relation to the second set (first and second LED filaments that are independently controlled by a controller, see paragraph 0005). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to Bergman and provide the controller means and circuitry to control the LEDs in Van Bommel such that a first and second set of the LEDs are independently controllable to provide additional features and controlling means to for the light of Van Bommel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, the use of blue/UV LEDs is very well known in the art; references can be found dating back to the mid 1990’s for this. The prior rejection cited evidence of utilizing UV LEDs (see Genier paragraph 0043).
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