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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/2/24 and 6/30/26 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe [US 10278245].
As to claim 1, Abe discloses a light emitting diode, LED, filament arrangement configured to, in operation, emit LED filament light [see figure 5a, also figure 4], the LED filament arrangement comprising: a first plurality of LED light sources configured to, in operation, emit first LED light source light, the first LED light source light comprising blue LED light source light [top row in figures 4, 5a], a second plurality of LED light sources configured to, in operation, emit second LED light source light the second LED light source light comprising red LED light source light [bottom row, in particular the right side, in figure 4, 5a], and a luminescent layer covering at least a part of the first plurality of LED light sources and at least a part of the second plurality of LED light sources [31/32, figure 5b], wherein the luminescent layer is configured to convert the blue LED light source light into converted light, the converted light being one or more of green and yellow light [see column 8, lines 26-33], and wherein the second plurality of LED light sources are arranged in a successional configuration without any LED light sources configured to, in operation, emit LED light source light of other colors than red being provided in the succession of the LED light sources of the second plurality of LED light sources [see figure 4, bottom right portion], and wherein the second plurality of LED light sources further comprises a plurality of LED light sources configured to, in operation, emit blue LED light source light, whereby the second LED light source light further comprises blue LED light source light, the said plurality of LED light sources configured to, in operation, emit red LED light source light being covered by a second phosphor converting the blue LED light source light into red LED light source light [see rest of bottom row, figure 4, 5a].
Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the luminescent layer converts at least 88% of the blue light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the efficiency to be as high as possible for the blue light, depending on the desired characteristics of the emitted light [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 2, Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LED filament light comprises 3%-7% blue LED light source light. Abe teaches mixing the red and blue levels according to a desired lighting effect [see figures 4, 5a, summary]. It would have been obvious to configure the light emissions and create such powering levels so as to emit 3-7% blue light, depending on the type of lighting desired by the user [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 3, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first plurality of LED light sources and the second plurality of LED light sources are arranged on the same carrier [20, figure 5a].
As to claim 4, Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the luminescent layer is provided in a distance (D) from the first plurality of LED light sources and the second plurality of LED light sources, and wherein the distance (D) is more than 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In 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 this instance, one would have been motivated based on the desired size of the overall lighting unit [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 5, Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pitch of the second plurality of LED light sources is smaller than a pitch of the first plurality of LED light sources, and wherein P2 ≤ 0.5*P1. Abe teaches varying pitches of the colored LEDs was well known [see figure 11]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In 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 this instance, one would have been motivated to place the lights and the pitches therein based on the type of lighting desired by a user [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 6, Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LED filament light comprises a correlated color temperature (CCT) being smaller than 2500 K and a color rendering index (CRI) being larger than 80. Abe teaches implementing the lighting unit to produce light CCT and CRI as desired by a user [see column 1, line 64 – column 2, lines 32). It would have been obvious to configure the light emissions and create such CRI and CCT levels, depending on the type of lighting desired by the user [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 7, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the luminescent layer is configured to convert less than 5%, less than 3 %, less than 2 %, less than 1% or 0% of the red LED light source light into converted light [see column 8, lines 26-33].
As to claim 8, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the second plurality of LED light sources are arranged on a line, and wherein the first plurality of LED light sources are distributed around said line [see figure 4, 5a].
As to claim 9, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 8, wherein at least one of the following applies: the line is a continuous line, and the line is arranged in a meandering or spiral pattern [see figure 4, 5a].
As to claim 10, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first plurality of LED light sources are arranged in a matrix [see figures 4, 5a].
As to claim 11, Abe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the carrier comprises a length L and a width W, wherein 0.5 < L/W < 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In 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 this instance, one would have been motivated based on the desired size of the overall lighting unit [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 13, Abe discloses a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising a controller for individually controlling the first plurality of LED light sources and the second plurality of LED light sources [50, figure 5a], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller being configured to change the correlated color temperature of said LED filament light from a first correlated color temperature (CCT1) to a second correlated color temperature (CCT2), wherein |CCT1 - CCT2 ≥ 300K. Abe teaches implementing the lighting unit to produce light CCT and CRI as desired by a user [see column 1, line 64 – column 2, lines 32). It would have been obvious to configure the light emissions and create such CRI and CCT levels, depending on the type of lighting desired by the user [see Abe, column 17, lines 45-53].
As to claim 14, Abe discloses A lamp or a luminaire (20) comprising a LED filament arrangement according to claim 1 [see 1, figure 5a].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 12 provides for an LED filament arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the LED filament arrangement comprises a light exit window from which the LED filament light is emitted, and wherein the second plurality of LED light sources are arranged closer to the light exit window than the first plurality of LED light sources. No cited art teaches such a configuration in combination with other claimed elements and limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Helbing [see PTO-892], Ducharme, Mueller, Onushkin, Van Bommel, Tiwari, Matsubayashi, and Zhang all teach alternative embodiments for either selectively powering light sources to provide properly rendered light as may be desired by a user, and LED modules with include multiple light sources included within the same substrate and under the same phosphors or luminescent layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights