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 .
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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 recite “Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum”. However, the specification does not describe how to calculate Lc(Xk), a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements. In addition, the specification does not describe how to calculate refc(Xk), a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum. Para. 0060 of the published application describes 'Natural light is a light emitted from the sun toward a space where the light emitting device is installed, and it can vary depending on time and weather.' The specification does not provide how to determine the normalized spectral radial flux based on time and weather. In addition, para. 0096 of the specification describes “The normalized spectral radiant flux of natural light may be obtained based on the highest radiant flux value in the natural light spectrum”. However, the specification fails to specify how to obtain the highest radiant flux value.
. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light
emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum”, which contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe how to calculate Lc(Xk), a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements. In addition, the specification does not describe how to calculate refc(Xk), a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum. Para. 0060 of the published application describes 'Natural light is a light emitted from the sun toward a space where the light emitting device is installed, and it can vary depending on time and weather.' The specification does not provide how to determine the normalized spectral radial flux based on time and weather. In addition, para. 0096 of the specification describes “The normalized spectral radiant flux of natural light may be obtained based on the highest radiant flux value in the natural light spectrum”. However, the specification fails to specify how to obtain the highest radiant flux value.
Claims 2-8 are rejected base on the dependency from claim 1.
Similarly, claim 9 recites “Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum”. It has the same issues as discussed in claim 1
Claims 10-18 are rejected base on the dependency from claim 9.
Further clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a is a wavelength selected from a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength selected from a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm, Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum”, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not specify the values of a and b or how to select the values of a and b. Does it mean that the values are selected arbitrarily by the user, or something else? In addition, it’s unclear how a and b are related to the plurality of light elements.
Claims 2-8 are rejected base on the dependency from claim 1.
Similarly, claim 9 recites “a is a wavelength selected from a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength selected from a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm”, which renders the claim indefinite. It has the same issues as discussed in claim 1
Claims 10-18 are rejected base on the dependency from claim 9.
Further clarification is required.
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 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollnow et al. (US 2011/0285292).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses a light emitting device [e.g. fig. 1/ 2], comprising: a plurality of light emitting elements [e.g. 104A-104D] that emit light within a predetermined color temperature region [see para. 0011] on a color coordinate system, wherein an average of color coordinate values of the plurality of light emitting elements are located within the predetermined color temperature region, and the plurality of light emitting elements include a first light emitting element and a second light emitting element [e.g. two elements of 104A-104D]; a controller [e.g. 105; see at least pars. 0042-0044] configured to determine a corresponding power to be applied to each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element to adjust an intensity of light respectively emitted from each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element so that:
Srms=
√
(
1
(
b
-
a
)
∑
k
=
a
b
1
-
L
c
X
k
r
e
f
c
X
k
)
<
0.9
wherein a is a wavelength in a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength in a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm, Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of mixed light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements at a wavelength Xk, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user (see at least paras. 0011-0013, 0043-0045)]; and wherein the controller is further configured to control a power distributor [see at least paras. 0040-0041; The application of the voltage V.sub.source may be accomplished via one or more switches (not shown) controlled by the controller 105] to supply the determined corresponding power to the first and second light emitting elements so that Srms < 0.9.
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the color temperature region has four vertices defined by a first coordinate, a second coordinate, a third coordinate, and a fourth coordinate on the color coordinate system, wherein the first coordinate has an x-value smaller than x-values of the second coordinate and the third coordinate, and a y-value smaller than y-values of the second coordinate, the third coordinate, and the fourth coordinate, wherein the second coordinate has a y-value smaller than the y-values of the third coordinate and the fourth coordinate, wherein the third coordinate has a y-value greater than the y-values of the first coordinate, the second coordinate, and the fourth coordinate, and an x-value greater than the first coordinate and the fourth coordinate, and wherein the fourth coordinate has a y-value greater than the y-values of the first coordinate and the second coordinate and smaller than the y-value of the third coordinate, and an x-value smaller than the x-values of the second coordinate and the third coordinate [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the color temperature region has an elliptical shape on the color coordinate system [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein the color temperature region is inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to an x-axis on the color coordinate system [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 4, wherein the predetermined angle ranges from 40° to 70° [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 3, wherein a length of a major axis of the color temperature region ranges from 0.0110 to 0.0144 [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 4, wherein a length of the minor axis of the color temperature region ranges from 0.0045 to 0.0066 [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the color temperature of the light emitted by the plurality of light emitting elements ranges from 1700K to 7000K [see at least paras. 0017-0018, 0043-0045].
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses a light emitting device e.g. fig. 1/ 2], comprising: a plurality of first light emitting elements that emit light in a first color temperature region on a color coordinate system among a plurality of color temperature regions; a plurality of second light emitting elements that emit light in a second color temperature region, different from the first color temperature region, on the color coordinate system; and a controller [e.g. 105] configured to control an intensity of light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements such that an average of color coordinate values of the plurality of first light emitting elements and the plurality of second light emitting elements are positioned within one of the plurality of color temperature regions, wherein the controller is configured to determine a corresponding power to be applied to each of the plurality of first light emitting elements and the plurality of second light emitting elements to adjust an intensity of light emitted from each of the plurality of first light emitting elements and the plurality of second light emitting element so that:
Srms=
√
(
1
(
b
-
a
)
∑
k
=
a
b
1
-
L
c
X
k
r
e
f
c
X
k
)
<
0.9
wherein a is a wavelength in a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength in a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm, Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements at a wavelength Xk, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum; and wherein the controller is further configured to control a power distributor [see at least paras. 0040-0041; The application of the voltage V.sub.source may be accomplished via one or more switches (not shown) controlled by the controller 105] to supply the determined corresponding power to the plurality of first light emitting elements and the plurality of second light emitting elements so that Srms <0.9. Please see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 9, wherein the first color temperature region has the largest central color coordinate x- and y-values among the plurality of color temperature regions, and the second color temperature region has the smallest central color coordinate x- and y-values among the plurality of color temperature regions, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of first light emitting elements and the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements such that the average of the color coordinate values of the plurality of light emitting elements moves from one of the first color temperature region and the second color temperature region toward the other of the first color temperature region and the second color temperature region [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to control the power distributor so as to increase the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of first light emitting elements and decrease the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements so that the average of the color coordinate values of the plurality of first and second light emitting elements moves towards the first color temperature region [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to control the power distributor so as to decrease the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of first light emitting elements and increase the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements so that the average of the color coordinate values of the plurality of first and second light emitting elements moves towards the second color temperature region [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to control the power distributor so as to control the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of first light emitting elements and the intensity of light emitted from the plurality of second light emitting elements to be equal so that the average of the color coordinate values of the plurality of first and second light emitting elements is disposed in a center of the first color temperature region and the second color temperature region while being disposed within one of the plurality of color temperature regions [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of color temperature regions have rectangular shapes on the color coordinate system, and at least some of which are in contact with each other [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 15 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 13, wherein a size of the first color temperature region is larger than a size of the second color temperature region [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 9, wherein the plurality of color temperature regions have elliptical shapes on the color coordinate system and are arranged to be spaced apart from each other [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 16, wherein the plurality of color temperature regions are arranged at a predetermined angle with respect to an x-axis of the color coordinate system [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood), Mollnow discloses the light emitting device of claim 17, wherein an angle at which the first color temperature region is inclined is different from an angle at which the second color temperature region is inclined [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘However, Applicant respectfully submits that the '292 application fails to disclose a controller configured to determine a corresponding power to be applied to each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element to adjust an intensity of light emitted from each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element sothat: Srms = 0.9, wherein a is a wavelength in a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength in a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm, Lc(x) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of mixed light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements at a wavelength xk, and ref (x) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum; and wherein the controller is configured to control a power distributor to supply the determined corresponding power to the first and second light emitting elements so that Srms < 0.9, as recited in amended Claim 1.’
However, Mollnow disclose a controller [e.g. 105; see at least pars. 0042-0044] configured to determine a corresponding power to be applied to each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element to adjust an intensity of light respectively emitted from each of the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element so that:
Srms=
√
(
1
(
b
-
a
)
∑
k
=
a
b
1
-
L
c
X
k
r
e
f
c
X
k
)
<
0.9
wherein a is a wavelength in a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength in a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm, Lc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of mixed light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements at a wavelength Xk, and refc(Xk) is a normalized spectral radiant flux of a natural light normalized from a natural light spectrum [the lighting device of Mollnow is capable of generating lights desired by a user (see at least paras. 0011-0013, 0043-0045)]; and wherein the controller is further configured to control a power distributor [see at least paras. 0040-0041; The application of the voltage V.sub.source may be accomplished via one or more switches (not shown) controlled by the controller 105] to supply the determined corresponding power to the first and second light emitting elements so that Srms < 0.9.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the amendment does not cure the deficiency. Claims 1 and 9 recites Srms=
√
(
1
(
b
-
a
)
∑
k
=
a
b
1
-
L
c
X
k
r
e
f
c
X
k
)
<
0.9
wherein a is a wavelength in a range of 200 nm or more and less than 500 nm, b is a wavelength in a range of 500 nm or more and less than 900 nm. Claims 1 and 9 only point out the range of a and b. Claims 1 and 9 do not specify the values of a and b and/or how to select the values of a and b from the recited range. In addition, it’s unclear how a and b are related to the plurality of light elements.
Applicant argues:
‘In particular, the calculation of the normalized spectral radial flux is described in paragraphs 96-99 in the published application.’
However, para. 0060 of the published application describes 'Natural light is a light emitted from the sun toward a space where the light emitting device is installed, and it can vary depending on time and weather.' The specification does not provide how to determine the normalized spectral radial flux based on time and weather. In addition, para. 0096 of the specification describes “The normalized spectral radiant flux of natural light may be obtained based on the highest radiant flux value in the natural light spectrum”. However, the specification fails to specify how to obtain the highest radiant flux value.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
