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 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 1-15 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 1-9, 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); 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, wherein either (i) the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm or (ii) the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor, and wherein the light emitted by the lighting device will have a nice white appearance in a far field the layer of phosphor comprises grinded particles of a polymer incorporating the phosphor (claim 9).
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 between at least two non-zero thicknesses (paragraph 41; *note that the incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference teaches multiple phosphors/lumiphors with varying thicknesses in column 15, line 52-column 16, line 3).
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.
As for claim 9, Trottier 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 (paragraph 41 of Trottier; *see: Abstract and column 4, line 40-60 of the incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference), wherein either (i) the LED comprises a blue emitting LED with a centroid wavelength of 430 nm (paragraph 41 of Trottier; *see: Abstract of the incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference) or (ii) the envelope is provided with a blue light emitting phosphor, and wherein the light emitted by the lighting device will have a nice white appearance in a 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 the phosphor, scattering particles, and filament of Trottier in the lighting device of Mathews, in order to provide a desired efficiency, appearance and light distribution (paragraphs 34 and 41 of Trottier and column 5, lines 24-67 of the incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference).
As for claim 1, while Trottier does teach adjusting the thickness of the coating layer of phosphor (paragraph 41 of Trottier incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 7,213,940; see: column 15, line 52-column 16, line 3 of the incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference); Mathews and Trottier do not explicitly teach the coating layer of phosphor has a thickness of 0.05-1.0 mm, but 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: wherein the dimmer is in a low position, the light emitting element flux increases and the LED is in the off-state, when the dimmer is in a medium position, the light emitting element flux increases and the LED flux increases, and when the dimmer is in a high position, the light emitting element flux remains constant above a certain value and the LED flux changes increases to a maximum level (see: TABLES 1-3).
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 the minimum luminance threshold when the light emitting element emits light above the predetermined threshold of luminance (TABLES 1-3).
As for claim 14, Mathews teaches wherein the minimum luminance threshold is proportional to an amount of flux emitted by the light emitting element (TABLES 1-3).
As for claim 15, Mathews teaches wherein the envelope is PMMA, glass, or polycarbonate (column 3, lines 4-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that “while Trottier does disclose the potential use of phosphor, it is clear that it is one of many options in Trottier, and the reference provides no particular reason or motivation to one skilled in the art to use phosphor instead of any of the other many options also provided”, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order for a reference to “teach away,” it must explicitly criticize, discredit, or discourage the specific combined feature (See also MPEP 2145.(X)(D)(1)). In this case Trottier has provided a specific phosphor feature and there is absolutely no criticism, discrediting, or discouraging the use of the phosphor. The Applicant argues there is no particular reason to use the phosphor instead of any of the other many options also provided, but a particular reason is not required to establish what feature is taught in the prior art. Further, Trottier does absolutely teach a particular reason and motivation to use the phosphor in paragraph 41 where it is established that U.S. Pat. No. 7,213,940 is incorporated therein by reference. The incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference explicitly teaches the use of phosphors to improve energy efficiency, CRI, efficacy and duration of service (column 5, lines 24-67).
The Applicant further argues that “neither Mathews nor Trottier provide any discussion, reference, or indication that the thickness of any particular substance (and certainly not phosphor) should be altered for any particular reason.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, Trottier explicitly discusses the thickness of a phosphor in paragraph 41 where it is established that U.S. Pat. No. 7,213,940 is incorporated therein by reference. The incorporated Van De Ven (7,213,940) reference explicitly contemplates adjusting the thickness of the phosphor in column 15, line 52-column 16, line 3.
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 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 571-272-2399. 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 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights