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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, lines 3, “the central support elements” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
With respect to claim 3, u’ and v’ are not defined in the claims and therefore it is impossible to discern the subject matter of claim 3 that requires wherein in the first operational mode a first color point of the first device light and a second color point of the second device light differ with at least 0.03 for u' and/or with at least 0.03 for v'.
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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (2012/0287671) in view of Van Boven et al. (WO-2015/121761-A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 7-9, Parker teaches light generating system (10) comprising (i) light generating devices (32) and (ii) pivotable parts (14), wherein: the light generating devices (32) comprise (i) a first linearly arranged light generating device (Fig. 3), configured to generate first device light (Figs. 3 and 6-7), and (ii) a second linearly arranged light generating device (32), configured to generate second device light (Figs. 3 and 6-7); the pivotable parts (14) comprise a first pivotable part (76, 80, and 84) and a second pivotable part (78 and 82), configured pivotable relative to each other over a pivot axis (Figs. 6-7 and 11); the first pivotable part is configured to support the first linearly arranged light generating device (via 28); the second pivotable part is configured to support the second linearly arranged light generating device (via 28); the first linearly arranged light generating device comprises one or more first solid state light sources (paragraph 26); the second linearly arranged light generating device comprises one or more second solid state light sources (paragraph 26); and wherein the first pivotable part and the second pivotable part have a mutual orientation over the pivot axis at a variable pivot angle (Figs. 6-11), wherein the light generating system in an operational mode is configured to generate system light comprising device light of at least one of the first device light and the second device light (Figs. 6-7), wherein the light generating system further comprises a control system configured to control the device light (paragraph 72), and wherein during an on-state of the light generating system the control system is configured to control the system light in dependence of the variable pivot angle (paragraph 72).
Parker does not explicitly teach in a first operational mode of the light generating system, the first device light and the second device light differ in color point (claim 1); wherein at least one of the first linearly arranged light generating device and the second linearly arranged light generating device is configured to generate colored device light (claim 7); wherein at least one of the first linearly arranged light generating device and the second linearly arranged light generating device is configured to generate device light having a controllable spectral power distribution (claim 8); wherein in a second operational mode of the light generating system, a spectral power distribution of at least one of the first device light and the second device light spatially differ in color point along at least part of the pivotable part length (Lp) of the respective pivotable part (claim 9)
As for claim 1, Van Boven also drawn to light generating systems, teaches a first operational mode of the light generating system, the first device light and the second device light differ in color point (Fig. 6 and paragraph 45).
As for claim 7, Van Boven teaches wherein at least one of the first linearly arranged light generating device and the second linearly arranged light generating device is configured to generate colored device light (Fig. 6 and paragraph 45).
As for claim 8, Van Boven teaches wherein at least one of the first linearly arranged light generating device and the second linearly arranged light generating device is configured to generate device light having a controllable spectral power distribution (Fig. 6 and paragraph 45).
As for claim 9, Van Boven teaches wherein in a second operational mode of the light generating system, a spectral power distribution of at least one of the first device light and the second device light spatially differ in color point along at least part of the pivotable part length (Lp) of the respective pivotable part (Fig. 6 and paragraph 45).
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 operating colors of Van Boven in the light generating system of Parker, in order to provide greater control for desired lighting effects (paragraph 45 of Van Boven).
As for claim 2, Parker further teaches wherein the control of the system light in dependence of the variable pivot angle (a) relates to at least one of: i) intensity level of at least one of the first device light and the second device light; ii) intensity ratio of the first device light and second device light; iii) emission spectrum of at least one of the first device light and the second device light; and iv) difference in color, color temperature or correlated color temperature of the first device light and the second device light (paragraph 72).
As for claim 4, Parker further teaches wherein the pivotable parts (400) comprise pivotable part lengths (Lp) and maximum cross-sectional dimensions (Dp), configured perpendicular to the respective pivotable part lengths (Lp), wherein Lp/Dp>5 (Fig. 11).
As for claim 5, although Parker and Van Boven do not explicitly teach wherein the pivotable part lengths (Lp) are selected from the range of 5-150 cm, and wherein the maximum cross-sectional dimensions (Dp) are selected from the range of 2-50 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 optimize the lengths and cross-sectional dimensions, in order to provide a device that is a small as possible but robust enough for normal wear and tear.
As for claim 6, Parker teaches wherein a difference between a minimum pivot angle (ai) and a maximum pivot angle (a2) is selected from the range of 45-360° (Figs. 6-7).
As for claim 10, Parker teaches wherein the first pivotable part and the second pivotable part are perpendicular in length to the central support element (43/138; Figs. 1, 4, 6-11, and 24).
As for claim 12, Parker further comprising a baffle element (16), functionally coupled to at least one of the pivotable parts, at least partly configured between the first linearly arranged light generating device and the second linearly arranged light generating device, and configured to limit overlap of beams of the first device light and the second device light (Fig. 7).
As for claim 13, Parker teaches further comprising a central support element (43/138), around which the pivotable parts are configured pivotable; wherein the light generating system further comprises a central support element light generating device (43/138), configured to generate support element device light; wherein the central support element light generating device comprises one or more central support element solid state light sources; and wherein the central support element is configured to support the central support element light generating device (Figs. 1, 4, 6-11, and 24).
As for claim 14, Parker teaches the lighting device selected from the group of a lamp (Figs. 6-7), a luminaire (Figs. 6-7), disinfection device, and an optical wireless communication device, comprising the light generating system according to claim 1.
As for claim 15, Parker teaches an arrangement comprising the light generating system, wherein the light generating system is configured to provide the first device light and the second device light to two respective items selected from a floor, a ceiling, a first wall, and a second wall, different from the first wall (Figs. 6-7).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker and Van Boven, as is applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Sadwick et al. (WO-2017/117316-A1)
With respect to claim 11, Parker and Van Boven teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching wherein the control system is configured to further control the system light in dependence of a distance to a surface illuminated by the light generating system (claim 11).
As for claim 11, Sadwick also drawn to light generating systems, teaches wherein the control system is configured to further control the system light in dependence of a distance to a surface illuminated by the light generating system (paragraph 217).
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 distance control of Sadwick in the light generating system of Parker, in order to provide desired automatic controls (paragraph 217 of Sadwick).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tsukamoto (2015/0023030); see: Fig. 1A-4C
Wantanambe et al. (2013/0082901); see: Fig. 2
You (7,768,596); see: Figs. 4-7
Kim (2010/0053858); see: Figs. 1 and 6
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 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights