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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollnow [US 2011/0285292] in view of Nakajima [US 2010/0110659].
As to claim 1 and its dependent claims, the claims recite a light source which provides light [see abstract of Mollnow] which is mixed from light emitting devices each having different wavelengths or color temperatures [see 104a-d in figure 1, see also paragraphs 17 and 37]. Applicant specifies a specific ‘band’ of natural light similarity in the claim language which is generated by a controller [see Mollnow, 108, figure 1], however, Mollnow is capable of producing any sort of light desired by a user [see paragraphs 11-13, which recite the details that any known LED or combination of LEDs may be used and individually powered at any level desired by a user, see also figure 2]. Because Mollnow is capable of producing the light as recited in applicant’s claim language, those claims are at least fairly taught by Mollnow.
Within this controller, it necessarily must have, for each of the light emitting devices, a normalized spectral radiant flux over a predetermined range of wavelengths [see paragraph 44] as a base reference level for choosing specific light intensities to produce a color as desired.
Mollnow fails to explicitly disclose wherein a light intensity ratio is set via a power or duty ratio to be applied to the light sources and then the light driving effects are implemented with the power or duty ratio as determined.
Nakajima teaches that dimming or brightening light sources with a duty ratio was well known within the art [see Nakajima, paragraphs 10, 16, 59]. It would have been obvious to implement the duty and power ratios as methods for providing a desired brightness, depending on whether ac or dc power is provided to the light source [see Nakajima, paragraph 10, see also Mollnow, paragraph 100].
As to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14, these claims all recite further limitations on the light emitted, light which may be reproduced by the lighting unit as taught by Mollnow [see rejection, above].
In claims 4, applicant recites an inherent limitation (the limitations in claim 4 naturally and necessarily follow the equation given in claim 1).
As to claim 8, Mollnow teaches the use of LEDs and phosphors [see paragraph 12].
As to claim 9, Mollnow teaches the use of a controller [see 202, figure 2].
As to claim 10, Mollnow teaches the use of multiple colored LEDs [see paragraph 11].
As to claim 17, Mollnow discloses wherein the controller is further configured to control the light intensity ratio through voltage control [see paragraph 38].
Applicant must distinguish their invention from the prior art by positively reciting the structure and elements of the lighting unit in the claim language which allow it to create a specified light pattern in a novel and nonobvious way.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollnow in view of Dupras [US 20180014375] and Nakajima [US 2010/0110659].
As to claim 15, Mollnow discloses a light emitting apparatus [see figure 2], comprising a plurality of light emitting devices configured to emit light having different correlated color temperatures [see 100, figure 2, see also paragraphs 11-13], and a controller configured to control a light intensity ratio of the plurality of light emitting devices for each time period of day [see 202, figure 2]. Mollnow fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller drives the light sources in order to mimic or in accordance with changes in natural light during the day so that light emitted from the light emitting apparatus matches the natural light during the time period. Dupras teaches configuring a controller so as to modify emitted light in accordance with the type of natural light throughout the day was well known [see paragraph 10]. It would have been obvious to configure the controller as claimed, depending on the type of light desired by a user [see Mollnow, paragraph 100].
Within this controller, it necessarily must have, for each of the light emitting devices, a normalized spectral radiant flux over a predetermined range of wavelengths [see paragraph 44] as a base reference level for choosing specific light intensities to produce a color as desired.
Mollnow fails to explicitly disclose wherein a light intensity ratio is set via a power or duty ratio to be applied to the light sources and then the light driving effects are implemented with the power or duty ratio as determined.
Nakajima teaches that dimming or brightening light sources with a duty ratio was well known within the art [see Nakajima, paragraphs 10, 16, 59]. It would have been obvious to implement the duty and power ratios as methods for providing a desired brightness, depending on whether ac or dc power is provided to the light source [see Nakajima, paragraph 10, see also Mollnow, paragraph 100].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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