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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on March 23 of 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on March 23 of 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 have been amended. Claims 3, 14, 17, 20 and 23 have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 21 and 25 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification have overcome the objections detailed in sections 2 and 3 of the previous Office Action (mailed September 24, 2025).
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the objections and claim rejections under 35 USC 112, as detailed in sections 4-11 of the previous Office Action (mailed September 24, 2025). Therefore, the cited objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
The indicated allowability of previous dependent claim 17 (subject matter now incorporated into independent claim 1 by applicant’s amendment) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to SAITO (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2008/0211429). Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cavity” with a center offset from a center of the “optical element” in the direction toward the “LEEs” (as defined in claims 1 and 18), the “indentations” (as defined in claims 5 and 9), and the “phosphor elements” (as defined in claims 8, 10 and 11) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section (b)
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.
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 18 is indefinite as it depends from cancelled claim 14. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 18 to be dependent from claim 1.
Independent claim 25 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the section of the cavity” (see line 11). The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, independent claim 25 as attempting to define a section of the “cavity” being offset from a section of the “optical element” in a direction including an angle other than zero relative to a direction toward the “LEEs”.
Section (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 13 defines the “optical element” and the “cavity” as being concentric. However, independent claim 1 (from which claim 13 directly depends) defined the “optical element” and the “cavity” as being eccentric (see line 10). Claim 13 not only fails to include all the limitation of the claim from which it depends, but appears to contradict the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Dependent claim 18 defines a center of the “cavity” as being offset from a center of the “optical element” in a direction from the center of the “optical element relative to a direction toward the “LEEs”; however, independent claim 1, from which claim 18 directly depends, already define such relationship between the centers of the “cavity” and “optical element” (see lines 11 and 12 of claim1). The “illumination device” of dependent claim 18 appears to be substantially identical to that of independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 13.
CLAIM 18. The illumination device of claim [[14]]1, wherein a center of the cavity is offset from a center of the optical element in a direction from the center of the optical element
CLAIM 25. An illumination device comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements (LEEs); and
a transparent elongated optical element including one or more cavities arranged along an elongation direction of the optical element,
wherein the optical element is arranged to receive light from the LEEs through a surface extending along the elongation direction,
wherein the optical element has a tubular shape with one cavity of the one or more cavities extending along a full elongated extension of the optical element,
wherein in planes perpendicular to the elongate extension of the optical element,
the optical element and the cavity are eccentric, and
wherein [[the]]a section of the cavity is offset from a section of the optical element in a direction including an angle other than zero relative to a direction toward the LEEs.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAITO (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2008/0211429).
Regarding independent claim 1, SAITO discloses an illumination device 1 (as seen in Figure 1) including a plurality of light-emitting elements (LEEs) 5 (as seen in Figure 1); and a transparent elongated optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 1) including one or more cavities 7e (as seen in Figure 1) arranged along an elongation direction of the optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the optical element 7 is arranged to receive light from the LEEs 5 through a surface 7e extending along the elongation direction (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the optical element 7 has a tubular shape (as seen in Figure 1) with one cavity 7e of the one or more cavities 7e extending along a full elongated extension of the optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 2), wherein in planes perpendicular to the elongate extension of the optical element 7, the optical element 7 and the cavity 7e are eccentric (as seen in Figure 1), and wherein a center of the cavity 7e is offset from a center of the optical element 7 in a direction from the center of the optical element 7 toward the LEEs 5 (as seen in Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2008/0211429 (SAITO), modified and annotated to clearly referenced claimed structural elements and features.
Regarding dependent claim 2, SAITO further discloses the optical element 7 has a curvilinear shape (the shape of element 7 is substantially circular, as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 7, SAITO further discloses a planar substrate 3 (as seen in Figure 1), the plurality of LEEs 5 operatively arranged on the planar substrate 3 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 12, SAITO further discloses both the optical element 7 and cavity 7e have circular sections (the shape of both elements 7 and 7e is substantially circular, as seen in Figure 1) in planes perpendicular to the elongation direction of the optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, SAITO further discloses the optical element 7 has a circular cross section (the cross section of element 7 is substantially circular, as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 16, SAITO further discloses the cavity 7e has a circular cross section (the cross section of element 7e is substantially circular, as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 18 (as best understood), SAITO further discloses a center of the cavity 7e is offset from a center of the optical element 7 in a direction from the center of the optical element 7 relative to a direction toward the LEEs 5 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 19, SAITO further discloses the LEEs 5 are spaced apart from the optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 1).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2008/0211429) in view of FUKUI (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0295264).
Regarding dependent claim 4, SAITO discloses all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), except the optical element 7 having a closed annular shape.
However, FUKUI discloses an illumination device A1 (as seen in Figure 2) including a plurality of light-emitting elements (LEEs) 40 (as seen in Figure 2); and a transparent elongated optical element 10 (as seen in Figure 2) including one or more cavities (inner space of element 10, as seen in Figure 2) arranged along an elongation direction of the optical element 10 (as seen in Figure 2), the optical element 10 having a closed annular shape (as seen in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical element 7 of SAITO to have the closed annular shape of the patented optical element 10 of FUKUI, according to the known methods taught by FUKUI, to yield the predictable result of providing an annular illumination device, as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 6, SAITO further discloses the optical element 7 including a groove 7e (element 7e is configured as a groove, as seen in Figure 1) arranged along the extension direction of the optical element 7 (as seen in Figure 1) and optically coupled to the LEEs 5 (as seen in Figure 1).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deng (U.S. Pat. 7,635,201), Huang et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0292652), Osawa (U.S. Pat. 8,425,081), Broitzman et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,471,494), and Ye et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0198496) disclose illumination devices including a plurality of light emitting elements (LEEs) optically coupled to a transparent elongated optical element including at least one cavity extending fully along the longitudinal direction of the optical element. Some further disclose optical elements having a closed annular shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 22 and 24 are allowed.
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5 and 8-11 are 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:
Applicant teaches illumination devices including a plurality of light emitting elements (LEEs) optically coupled to a transparent elongated optical element including at least one cavity extending fully along the longitudinal direction of the optical element. The optical element has a tubular shape. The cavity and the optical element are eccentric, with the center of the cavity offset from the center of the optical element in a direction towards the LEEs.
In a first embodiment, a plurality of indentations are optically coupled to the LEEs.
In a second embodiment, at least one phosphor configured to convert light from the LEEs from a first spectral distribution to a second spectral power distribution are also provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights