DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9, 11-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petluri (U.S. 10,477,636) in view of Sagawa (U.S. 12,245,342; filed 10/21/2021 as JP 2021-17621, all references made to the US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 1, Petluri teaches a light generating system (see fig. 1), configured to generate system light, the light generating system comprising:
a first SSL light source string (106) configured to generate first light having a first color point and a first correlated color temperature CCT1 (see fig. 7, within 702, 1500k see col. 9 lines 50-55), and the first SSL light source string having at least one first SSL light source for generating violet and/or blue light (445-490nm, see col. 9 lines 8-17) and a first luminescent material (third lumiphore, see col. 8 lines 45-67),
a second SSL light source string (104) configured to generate second light (see fig. 4) having a second color point and a second correlated color temperature CCT2 (1700-2900K, see col. 9 lines 40-45), and which comprises at least one second SSL light source for generating violet and/or blue light (see col. 8 lines 31-40) and a second luminescent material (second lumiphore, see col. 8), and
a third SSL light source string (102) configured to generate third light having a third color point and a third correlated color temperature CCT3 (4800-2500k see col. 9 lines 30-35), and which comprises at least one third SSL light source for generating cyan light (cyan is 475-525nm; see col. 9 lines 7-17) and a third luminescent material (first lumiphore see col. 7 lines 60-67),
wherein the first correlated color temperature (1500K) is lower than the second correlated color temperature (1700-2900K), and
the first correlated color temperature is lower than the third correlated color temperature (2500k-4800k);
wherein the first SSl light source string is configured to generate warm-white light (1500k), and wherein the third SSL light source string are configured to generate cold-white light (4800k);
wherein the first color point, the second color point, and the third color point are on a straight line in a color diagram (see figs. 3, 4, 7, have regions that have dots on a straight line), and wherein the first color point, the second color point and the third color point do not overlap within 10 standard deviation of color matching (see figures 3, 4, 7, have regions that do not overlap within 10 standard deviation of color matching);
wherein the second luminescent material (second lumiphor, see col. 8 lines 22-44;) and the third luminescent material (third lumiphor, see col. 8 lines 53-65) are substantially identical (see col. 16, each lumiphor may be any within the list of lumiphors, the list is identically overlapping. );
wherein the first SSL light source string, the second SSL light source string and the third SSL light source string are individually controllable (see col. 28 lines 45-54); and
wherein the system light is substantially white light with a correlated color temperature in the range between 2200 - 6500 K (3400 K, see co. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Petluri does not teach that the second SSL light source string generates cold-white light.
Sagawa teaches a second SSL light string generates cold-white light (see fig. 7, 11 and 12 are cold white light strings).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the second light string of Petluri a colder white light to increase the melanopic ratio of the light source as taught by Sagawa to suppress melatonin secretion, see col. 3 of Sagawa.
The wavelength ranges as claimed; lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Petluri teaches that the first SSL light source (106) is configured to generate first SSL light having a first dominant wavelength selected from the range of 440-470 nm (445-490nm), wherein the second SSL light source (104) is configured to generate second SSL light having a second dominant wavelength selected from the range of 425-470 nm (420-510nm), and wherein the third SSL light source (102) is configured to generate third SSL light having a third dominant wavelength selected from the range of 470-520 (475-525); wherein (i) X3d>X2d and X3d>Xld, and/or (ii) X3c>X2c and X3c>lc.
The wavelength ranges as claimed; lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Petluri teaches that the first light has a first Melanopic Daylight Efficacy Ratio (MDER), wherein the second light has a second Melanopic Daylight Efficacy Ratio (MDER), and wherein the third light has a third Melanopic Daylight Efficacy Ratio (MDER), wherein the second MDER value is lower than the third MDER value (see annotated figure 3, 5, 7, second light is less cold than third light).
Regarding claim 4, Petluri teaches that the third MDER value is larger than both the first MDER value and the second MDER value.
Petluri does not teach wherein at least two of the first MDER value, the second MDER value, and the third MDER value mutually differ at least 0.1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the MDER value of the light sources to differ at least .1 to increase the tunability of the light source. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. Specifically one of ordinary skill in the art would find that increasing the difference of the MDER values enable the light source to have more variation in the MDER of the emitted light from the system.
Regarding claim 5, Petluri teaches a control system configured to individually control the first SSL light source string, the second SSL light source string, and the third SSL light source string (see col. 28 lines 45-54).
Regarding claim 6, Petluri teaches that the first luminescent material or the second luminescent material or the third luminescent material comprises a luminescent material of the type a3b5o12:Ce, wherein A comprises one or more of Y, La, Gd, Tb, and Lu, and wherein B comprises one or more of Al, Ga, In, Sc (see col. 16, Y3Ga5O12:ce).
Regarding claim 7, Petluri teaches that the first luminescent material, second luminescent material, and third luminescent material are substantially identical (each of the lumiphors may be the same or different, see col. 15 lines 62-col. 16 line 30).
The Examiner notes that Petluri teaches encompassing a wide variety of known light sources and lumiphore combinations, the Examiner finds that Petluri teaches combinations wherein the lumiphors are all the same material.
Regarding claim 8, Petluri teaches comprising a fourth luminescent material different from the first, second, and third luminescent material, wherein the fourth luminescent material is configured downstream of the at least one first SSL light source and is not configured downstream of the at least one second SSL light source and the at least one third SSL light source (see col. 15 lines 50-65, lumiphors may contain multiple layers and may contain multiple types of luminescent materials, “one or more lumiphors”).
Regarding claim 9, Petluri teaches that the first, second, and third luminescent material are configured downstream of all of the at least one first SSL light source, the at least one second SSL light source, and the at least one third SSL light source, and wherein there is no other luminescent material configured downstream of the at least one second SSL source and the at least one third SSL light source (see fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11, Petluri teaches that the fourth luminescent material is an orange and/or red light emitting luminescent material (up converting, see col. 15, see col. 24 lines 16-28, see annotated figures 3, 5, 7 above)
Regarding claim 12, Petluri and Sagawa teaches that the third correlated color temperature CCT3 >3000K (2500-4800L), the second correlated temperature CCT2>3000K (up to 2900K, modified by Sagawa to be colder, i.e. higher temperature), and the first correlated color temperature CCT1 <2700K (1500K).
Regarding claim 13, Petluri teaches that the first correlated color temperature differs from the second correlated color temperature and the third correlated color temperature with at least 1000K, wherein all three color points, determined on the basis of 10 degree color matching functions are positioned within 10 standard deviation of color matching (SDCM) of the substantially straight line in the color diagram (see annotated figures 3, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 14, Petluri teaches that the system is a chip on board device (see col. 21 lines 25-40, one or more circuit boards for supporting and providing current to light emitting devices), wherein the chip on board device comprises the first SSL light source string, the second SSL light source string, and the third SSL light source string, the first luminescent material, the second luminescent material, and the third luminescent material (lumiphors may be in direct contact with light sources, see col. 36 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 15, Petluri teaches that the lighting device is selected from the group of a lamp, a luminaire (lighting system), and a projector device.
The Examiner notes that the terms “lamp” and “luminaire” have been interpreted as “a device that emits light”. The Examiner also notes that claim 15 is an intended use claim. “(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 18, Petleuri teaches that the first SSL light source string further comprises a fourth luminescent material configured downstream of the at least one first SSL light source, and wherein the first luminescent material of the first SSL light source string is configured downstream of the fourth luminescent material such that the at least one first SSL light source is first covered by the fourth luminescent material and then by the first luminescent material (see col. 15 lines 50-65, lumiphors may contain multiple layers and may contain multiple types of luminescent materials)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 16 recites, inter alia, wherein the control system is configured, in an operational mode, to control the system light such that a color rendering index (CRI) of the system light stays above a predefined threshold, and the color point of the system light is maintained constant while a Melanopic Daylight Efficacy Ratio (MDER) of the system light is varied. “
The prior art, specifically US 2022/0272806 teaches changing the color point/ temperature while maintaining CRI and MDER, but it does not teach changing MDER and maintaining the CRI and color point.
Additional art teaches variable MDER along with an “optimized CRI” or other variable within a predetermined domain, see Lapujade U.S .12,349,250. However the Examiner finds that such references achieve high or low MDER, but do not recite tuning such while maintaining CRI and color point.
Claim 17 is indicated allowable based on its dependence from claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Petluri does not specifically teach that the second and third luminescent material are substantially identical, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Petluri teaches that both the second and third light sources have an associated down converting lumiphor selected from the same list. The scope of the prior art teaches the use of every combination of phosphors within the list as being acceptable for use. The Examiner finds that the lumiphors may be the same or different.
Applicant argues that Petluri does not teach or suggest the specific combination of two lumiphors being the same, instead teaching an “everything and the kitchen sink” disclosure. The Examiner notes that Applicant discloses a similar long list in pages 15-16 of the disclosure, each of which provides support for the claims.
Regardless of the length and content of the prior art’s disclosure, Petluri is to be considered for all it contains, see MPEP 2123 I. Applicant has not recited a new or unknown combination of lumiphors, but ones that are previously recited in the list of Petluri.
The prior art teaches the genus of the phosphor list without specifically reciting the species, see MPEP 2144. 08. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, one must
(A) determine the scope and contents of the prior art;
(B) ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue;
(C) determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
(D) evaluate any evidence of secondary considerations.
See Graham at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467
The Examiner finds that (A) the prior art has a large scope that substantially overlaps with Applicant’s scope. (B) The differences are reciting a relationship between two of the recited lumiphors. (C) However, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art is very high and the functions of the lumiphors are very predictable, i.e. (D) the effects of all of the listed phosphors in both Applicant’s and Petluri’s list are established and documented and the effects of which are well known in the art.
I.e. the Examiner finds that the use of the same phosphor for downshifting both the second and third light source of Petluri is well within the skill of the art and an obvious use of known structures to achieve the recited outputs of Petluri.
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 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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights