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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 7, “the far field” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 13, lines 2-3, “a minimum luminance threshold” and “a predetermined threshold of luminance” are both introduced in claim 1 and therefore should be referred to with “the” or “said” rather than “a”.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, “the minimum brightness threshold” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination “the minimum brightness threshold is interpreted as the “minimum luminance threshold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
In claim 9, line 4, it is indefinite which features “or” is providing an alternative for. In this case, it is unclear if “or the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor” is an alternative for “wherein the light emitting element comprises a phosphor converting LED with a centroid wavelength of 450 nm and a yellow phosphor to generate white light, and the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm” or if it is an alternative for only “the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm”. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied and “or the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor” is interpreted as an alternative for “wherein the light emitting element comprises a phosphor converting LED with a centroid wavelength of 450 nm and a yellow phosphor to generate white light, and the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm”.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear if the features in parentheses are intended to be claimed or not.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews et al. (10,082,283) in view of Trottier (2017/0012177).
With respect to claims 1-8, Mathews teaches a lighting device (10) comprising: a light emitting element (55/56), and a translucent envelope (12 and 14) enclosing the light emitting element (Fig. 3) and having a surface area at least three times bigger than the light emitting area of the light emitting element (Fig. 3), an LED (27) arranged in connection with the envelope (column 3, lines 7-21), such that the envelope acts as a light guide for the LED (column 2, lines 54-55 and column 3, lines 7-21), wherein the envelope is coated with a layer (13) with a thickness and the layer is configured to block less than 30 % of the visible light emitted by the light emitting element (column 2, line 67-column 3, line 4), and wherein the LED is configured to emit light with a minimum luminance threshold when the light emitting element emits light above a predetermined threshold of luminance, affecting the envelope to glow and reduces a brightness contrast between the light emitting element and the LED, thereby reducing glare (column 4, lines 11-14; *note that a value the “minimum luminance threshold” is not claimed and could be reasonably interpreted as 0; *note that a brightness greater than 0 would reduce a brightness contrast of 0 luminance vs an activated light, so simply activating the light emitting element AND the LED would reduce a brightness contrast and achieve the claim language) [claim1].
Mathews does not explicitly teach wherein the envelope is coated with a layer of phosphor with a thickness of 0.05-1.0 mm (claim 1); wherein the phosphor is organic phosphor (claim 2); wherein the thickness of the layer of phosphor differs in different portions of the envelope (claim 3); wherein the layer of phosphor comprises scattering particles different from phosphor (claim 4); wherein the envelope is only coated with said layer of phosphor (claim 5); wherein the light emitting element comprises a separately controllable UV light source and wherein the layer of phosphor is configured to absorb UV light and re-emit it as visible light (claim 6); wherein the light emitting element is an LED filament (claim 7); wherein the layer of phosphor is at least one of patterned or comprises grinded particles of a polymer incorporating the phosphor (claim 8).
As for claim 1, Trottier also drawn to lighting devices, teaches an envelope (112) is coated with a layer of phosphor (paragraph 34).
As for claim 2, Trottier teaches wherein the phosphor is organic phosphor (paragraph 34; *note that organic phosphors are well-known in the art).
As for claim 3, Trottier teaches wherein the thickness of the layer of phosphor differs in different portions of the envelope (paragraph 34; *note that the thickness will go to 0 on portions that do not include the phosphor).
As for claim 4, Trottier teaches wherein the layer of phosphor comprises scattering particles different from phosphor (paragraph 34).
As for claim 5, Trottier teaches wherein the envelope is only coated with said layer of phosphor (paragraph 34).
As for claim 6, Trottier teaches wherein the light emitting element comprises a separately controllable UV light source and wherein the layer of phosphor is configured to absorb UV light and re-emit it as visible light (paragraph 40).
As for claim 7, Trottier teaches wherein the light emitting element is an LED filament (Figs. 1 and 7).
As for claim 8, Trottier teaches wherein the layer of phosphor is at least one of patterned (paragraph 34; *note that portion including the phosphor and portion not including the phosphor is a pattern; *further note that the already added layer (13) of Mathews teaches a pattern in Fig. 1 and column 2, lines 63-67) or comprises grinded particles of a polymer incorporating the phosphor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the phosphor, scattering particles, and filament of Trottier in the lighting device of Mathews, in order to provide a desired appearance and light distribution (paragraph 34 of Trottier).
As for claim 1, although Mathews and Trottier does not explicitly teach the coating layer of phosphor has a thickness of 0.05-1.0 mm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment and/or optimize the thickness of the phosphor layer, in order to provide an appropriate amount of light conversion while minimizing light blocking.
As for claim 10, Mathews teaches wherein the lighting device comprises a controller that is arranged to control the light emitting element 11 and the LED 12 independently (column 5, lines 4-24).
As for claim 11, Mathews teaches wherein the controller is a dimmer having a dimmer position arranged to control three stages: dimmer is in a low position: the light emitting element flux changes (increases) and the LED is in the off-state dimmer is in medium position: the light emitting element flux changes (increases) and the LED flux also changes (increases) dimmer is in high position the light emitting element flux is constant (above a certain value) and the LED flux changes (up to max level) (column 5, lines 4-24).
As for claim 12, Mathews teaches wherein the envelope is configured to, when acting as a light-guide for the LED, emit light such that at least 50 % of the area of the envelope emits light with a luminance that differs less than a factor of five from an average luminance of the envelope (column 2, lines 63-67).
As for claim 13, Mathews teaches wherein the LED is configured to emit light with a minimum luminance threshold when the light emitting element emits light above a predetermined threshold of luminance (column 4, lines 11-14; *note that values the “minimum luminance threshold” and the “predetermined threshold of luminance” are not claimed and are be reasonably interpreted as 0).
As for claim 14, Mathews teaches wherein the minimum brightness threshold is proportional to an amount of flux emitted by the light emitting element (column 4, lines 11-14; *note that values the “minimum luminance threshold” and the “predetermined threshold of luminance” are not claimed and are be reasonably interpreted as 0 when the light is “off”).
As for claim 15, Mathews teaches wherein the envelope is PMMA, glass, or polycarbonate (column 3, lines 4-6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathews and Trottier, as is applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Son et al. (2009/0323306).
With respect to claim 9, Mathews and Trottier teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching wherein the light emitting element comprises a phosphor converting LED with a centroid wavelength of 450 nm and a yellow phosphor to generate white light, and the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm or the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor, wherein the light emitted by the lighting device will have a nice white appearance in the far field the layer of phosphor comprises grinded particles of a polymer incorporating the phosphor (claim 9).
As for claim 9, Son also drawn to lighting devices, teaches wherein the light emitting element comprises a phosphor converting LED with a centroid wavelength of 450 nm and a yellow phosphor to generate white light, and the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm or the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor, wherein the light emitted by the lighting device will have a nice white appearance in the far field the layer of phosphor comprises grinded particles of a polymer incorporating the phosphor (paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use blue light emitting phosphor of Son in the lighting device of Mathews, in order to produce white light (paragraph 31 of Son).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/WILLIAM J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 8/6/2025