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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 02 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-9, 12, 16, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claim 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 9, and 20 being independent. The claim objection set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 02 December 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation recites: “...the lamp component is configured to be placed in a bent and folded manner during transportation...,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation intends to refer to the previously recited reflective layer and transmissive layer, or a different component of the lamp component. The instant disclosure does not describe bending and folding of any other elements except for the above-cited layers. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as referring to the above-cited layers. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. Specifically, claim 4 recites: “...both the reflective layer and the transmissive layer are flexible...,” which has already been recited in claim 1, thus, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. Specifically, claim 12 recites: “...the lamp component is configured to be placed in a bent and folded manner during transportation...,” which has already been recited in claim 9 (i.e., to the extent that this limitation refers to the reflective layer and transmissive layer), thus, claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4-6, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0131638 A1, herein referred to as: Sato), in view of Medendorp (US 2008/0198572 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches or suggests a lamp component (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a reflective layer (822), having a first face and a second face which is opposite the first face (as shown in Fig. 16) and can be attached to a predetermined position (to the elements therearound, as shown in Fig. 16); and a transmissive layer (823, 824), provided on the first face of the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 16), and the transmissive layer (823, 824) being doped with fluorescent powder particles (portion 823 is doped with fluorescent powder particles, paragraph [0128]), wherein the reflective layer and the transmissive layer together define a sheet configured to be a multilayer film structure (e.g., as shown in Fig. 16), wherein when first light (La and Lb) are emitted from an external directional light source (10A and 10B) is incident on the lamp component from the transmissive layer (823, 824), a part of the first light (Lb) interacts with the fluorescent powder particles in the transmissive layer to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce second light of a desired color (L90).
Sato does not explicitly teach that the reflective layer and the transmissive layer are flexible.
Sato alternatively teaches that the holding member (821) can be flexible (as noted in paragraph [0127]; and in other embodiments, elements 21, 23, 721, 722, 726, e.g., the sealer and holding members, can all be formed of a flexible material, as noted in paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0092], and [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and formed the reflective layer and the transmissive layer with a degree of flexibility (e.g., to match at least that of the holding member 821), in order to improve the performance and/or the longevity of the device (e.g., by allowing the components mounted on the holding member to bend with the holding member, and/or reduce stressing or damage if the holding member is bent, such as shown in Fig. 16), and/or increase or improve the utility and marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration in which reflective layer can be bent with the holding member to form various shapes or curvatures to suit different lighting applications).
The combined teachings of Sato teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for an attachment portion is provided on the second face of the reflective layer for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position.
Medendorp teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) the lamp component further comprises an attachment portion (111), the attachment portion being provided on the second face (the rear surface) of the reflective layer (107) for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of an attachment portion is provided on the second face of the reflective layer for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position, such as taught or suggested by Medendorp, in order to improve the performance of the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to prevent movement between the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion), and/or reduce the complexity of assembling the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to maintain pre-alignment or relative positioning of the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion), and/or provide a mounting feature which can be utilized to produce the arrangement of elements depicted in Fig. 16 of Sato.
Regarding claim 4, as is best understood, the combined teachings of Sato and Medendorp teach or suggest the limitations of claim 4, as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Sato does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 16, that wherein the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light.
Sato alternatively teaches the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light (paragraphs [0047]-[0048] and [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Sato, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of producing the light output desired for the suited application, and/or improve or increase the marketability or safety of the device (e.g., by utilizing a blue light excitation source as opposed to a narrower band and UV light source).
Regarding claim 6, Sato teaches or suggests a part of the first light (portion Lb) interacting with the fluorescent powder particles in the transmissive layer to excite the fluorescent powder particles to produce second light of a desired color (L90), comprises at least one of the following: a first part light of the first light incident on the transmissive layer directly interacts with the fluorescent powder particles to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce the second light of a desired color (at least some light rays Lb incident on the transmissive layer will directly interact with the fluorescent powder particles to produce the second light of a desired color); and a second part light of the first light incident on the transmissive layer transmits through the transmissive layer, is incident on the reflective layer, is reflected by the reflective layer and then interacts with the fluorescent powder particles to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce the second light of a desired color (at least some light rays Lb incident on the transmissive layer will pass therethrough, be reflected by reflective layer 822, and then interact with the fluorescent powder particles to produce the second light of a desired color).
Regarding claim 9, Sato teaches or suggests a lamp device (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a lamp component (Figs. 1-16), the lamp component comprising: a reflective layer (822), having a first face and a second face which is opposite the first face (as shown in Fig. 16) and can be attached to a predetermined position (to the elements therearound, as shown in Fig. 16); and a transmissive layer (823, 824), provided on the first face of the reflective layer (as shown in Fig. 16), and the transmissive layer (823, 824) being doped with fluorescent powder particles (portion 823 is doped with fluorescent powder particles, paragraph [0128]); a directional light source (10A, 10B), configured to be able to emit first light (La, Lb) to the transmissive layer (823, 824) of the lamp component at a predetermined angle (as shown in Fig. 16); wherein when first light (La, Lb) emitted from the directional light source is incident on the transmissive layer (as shown in Fig. 16), a part of the first light (Lb) interacts with the fluorescent powder particles in the transmissive layer (823, 824) to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce second light of a desired color (L90).
Sato does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 16, that the reflective layer and the transmissive layer are flexible and together define a sheet configured to be placed in a bent and folded manner during transportation.
Sato alternatively teaches that the holding member (821) can be flexible (as noted in paragraph [0127]; and in other embodiments, elements 21, 23, 721, 722, 726, e.g., the sealer and holding members, can all be formed of a flexible material, as noted in paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0092], and [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and formed the reflective layer and the transmissive layer with a degree of flexibility (e.g., to match at least that of the holding member 821) such that said sheet formed thereby is configured to be placed in a bent and folded manner during transportation, in order to improve the performance and/or the longevity of the device (e.g., by allowing the components mounted on the holding member to bend with the holding member, and/or not be stressed or damaged if the holding member is bent, such as shown in Fig. 16), and/or increase or improve the utility and marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration in which the components mounted on the holding member can be bent with the holding member to form various shapes or curvatures to suit different lighting applications), and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing or distributing the device (e.g., by providing a flexible device which can be shaped to fit into smaller sized boxes for shipping).
The combined teachings of Sato teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for an attachment portion is provided on the second face of the reflective layer for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position.
Medendorp teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) the lamp component further comprises an attachment portion (111), the attachment portion being provided on the second face (the rear surface) of the reflective layer (107) and being used for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of an attachment portion is provided on the second face of the reflective layer for attaching the lamp component to the predetermined position, such as taught or suggested by Medendorp, in order to improve the performance of the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to prevent movement between the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion), and/or reduce the complexity of assembling the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to maintain pre-alignment or relative positioning of the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion).
The combined teachings of Sato and Medendorp teach or suggest (as modified above) the reflective layer and the transmissive layer configured to be cut by a user into patterns of different shapes (i.e., this limitation does not impart anything structurally to the reflective layer or the transmissive layer. Specifically, both layered structures cited in Sato or Medendorp can be cut by a user utilizing some form of cutting device as desired to suit the needs of the specific user without any such modification to said existing structures).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the reflective layer and the transmissive layer configured to be cut by a user into patterns of different shapes (e.g., by simply noting that a user can cut either layered structure of Sato or Medendorp as desired, to their liking or style), since the courts have stated that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably motivated to increase the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration in which the device can shaped by the user to suit the desired application or event in which the device is being used).
Regarding claim 12, as is best understood, the combined teachings of Sato and Medendorp teach or suggest the limitations of claim 12, as outlined in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Sato does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Fig. 16, that wherein the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light.
Sato alternatively teaches the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light (paragraphs [0047]-[0048] and [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the external directional light source is a light source capable of emitting blue light, and the first light is blue light, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Sato, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of producing the light output desired for the suited application, and/or improve or increase the marketability or safety of the device (e.g., by utilizing a blue light excitation source as opposed to a narrower band and UV light source).
Regarding claim 14, Sato teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-16) a part of the first light (portion Lb) interacting with the fluorescent powder particles in the transmissive layer to excite the fluorescent powder particles to produce second light of a desired color (L90), comprises at least one of the following: a first part light of the first light incident on the transmissive layer directly interacts with the fluorescent powder particles to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce the second light of a desired color (at least some light rays Lb incident on the transmissive layer will directly interact with the fluorescent powder particles to produce the second light of a desired color); and a second part light of the first light incident on the transmissive layer transmits through the transmissive layer, is incident on the reflective layer, is reflected by the reflective layer and then interacts with the fluorescent powder particles to excite the fluorescent powder particles, to produce the second light of a desired color (at least some light rays Lb incident on the transmissive layer will pass therethrough, be reflected by reflective layer 822, and then interact with the fluorescent powder particles to produce the second light of a desired color).
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Medendorp, and in further view of Goldmann et al. (US 2021/0302003 A1, herein referred to as: Goldmann).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Sato teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-16) the reflective layer (822) is a silver layer or a multilayer film structure (paragraph [0128]).
Sato does not explicitly teach that the reflectivity of the reflective layer is greater than 80%.
Goldmann teaches or suggests (paragraphs [0035]-[0039]) the reflectivity of the reflective layer (134, 138) is greater than 80% (as described in paragraphs [0035]-[0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the reflectivity of the reflective layer is greater than 80%, such as taught or suggested by Goldmann, in order to improve the efficiency and/or performance of the device (e.g., by providing a highly reflective structure to increase the efficiency of light utilization of the device).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Sato does not explicitly teach that the fluorescent powder particles comprise at least one of cerium doped yttrium aluminum garnet Ce:YAG, red phosphor of Mn4+ doped potassium fluorosilicate PFS, or YAlO3.
Goldmann teaches or suggests (paragraph [0039]) the fluorescent powder particles (within 132) comprise at least one of cerium doped yttrium aluminum garnet Ce:YAG (paragraph [0039]), red phosphor of Mn4+ doped potassium fluorosilicate PFS, or YAlO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the fluorescent powder particles comprise at least one of cerium doped yttrium aluminum garnet Ce:YAG, red phosphor of Mn4+ doped potassium fluorosilicate PFS, or YAlO3, such as taught or suggested by Goldmann, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of producing the desired color or color temperature of light output from the device as suited for the intended application or environment.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Medendorp, and in further view of Hussell et al. (US 2010/0124243 A1, herein referred to as: Hussell).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Sato teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-16) the second light is yellow light, green light, red light (L90) or white light.
Sato does not explicitly teach that the luminous flux emitted from the lamp component is greater than 100 lumens.
Hussell teaches or suggests (paragraph [0037]) the luminous flux emitted from the lamp component is greater than 100 lumens (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the luminous flux emitted from the lamp component is greater than 100 lumens, such as taught or suggested by Hussell, in order to produce the desired luminous output for the suited application.
Claims 8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Medendorp, and in further view of Allen et al. (US 2021/0102685 A1, herein referred to as: Allen).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, neither Sato nor Medendorp explicitly teach that the attachment portion comprises at least one of: (i) an adhesive coated on the second face of the reflective layer; (ii) a magnet; or (iii) a hook and loop fastener.
Allen teaches or suggests (paragraph [0023]) the attachment portion (i.e., forming at least the rear of the recited elements which may form the reflective material in paragraph [0023]) comprises at least one of: (i) an adhesive coated on the second face of the reflective layer (paragraph [0023]); (ii) a magnet; or (iii) a hook and loop fastener.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the attachment portion comprises at least one of: (i) an adhesive coated on the second face of the reflective layer; (ii) a magnet; or (iii) a hook and loop fastener, such as taught or suggested by Allen, in order to improve the performance of the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to prevent movement between the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion), and/or reduce the complexity of assembling the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to maintain pre-alignment or relative positioning of the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion).
Regarding claims 17-18, Sato does not explicitly teach that the lamp device further comprises: an L-shaped support frame, having a first support rod and a second support rod that is perpendicularly arranged in an L-shape with the first support rod; and a support plate, which is arranged at one end of the first support rod opposite the second support rod and is perpendicular to the first support rod, wherein the lamp component is attached to a face of the support plate facing the second support rod by the attachment portion, and the directional light source is provided at one end of the second support rod opposite the first support rod and can emit the first light to the transmissive layer of the lamp component at the predetermined angle (as recited in claim 17); wherein the directional light source is offset from the lamp component by a predetermined distance in a horizontal direction, or directly below the lamp component (as recited in claim 18).
Medendorp teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) the lamp device further comprises: an L-shaped support frame (111), having a first support rod (the vertical portion of 111 between the two horizontal portions) and a second support rod (the lower horizontal portion connected to 103) that is perpendicularly arranged in an L-shape with the first support rod (as shown in Fig. 1); and a support plate (the upper horizontal portion), which is arranged at one end of the first support rod opposite the second support rod (as shown in Fig. 1) and is perpendicular to the first support rod (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the lamp component (107, 109) is attached to a face of the support plate facing the second support rod by the attachment portion (as shown in Fig. 1), and the directional light source (101a-101c, 103, and 105) is provided at one end of the second support rod opposite the first support rod (as shown in Fig. 1) and can emit the first light to the transmissive layer of the lamp component at the predetermined angle (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the directional light source is offset from the lamp component by a predetermined distance in a horizontal direction, or directly below the lamp component (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the lamp device further comprises: an L-shaped support frame, having a first support rod and a second support rod that is perpendicularly arranged in an L-shape with the first support rod; and a support plate, which is arranged at one end of the first support rod opposite the second support rod and is perpendicular to the first support rod, wherein the lamp component is attached to a face of the support plate facing the second support rod by the attachment portion, and the directional light source is provided at one end of the second support rod opposite the first support rod and can emit the first light to the transmissive layer of the lamp component at the predetermined angle (as recited in claim 17), wherein the directional light source is offset from the lamp component by a predetermined distance in a horizontal direction, or directly below the lamp component (as recited in claim 18), such as taught or suggested by Medendorp, in order to improve the performance of the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to prevent movement between the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion), and/or reduce the complexity of assembling the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to maintain pre-alignment or relative positioning of the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Medendorp and Allen, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Hashimoto (JP 2012048975 A).
Regarding claim 19, neither Sato, Medendorp, nor Allen explicitly teach that the lamp component is attached to a ceiling of a room via the attachment portion, and the directional light source is located on a floor of the room directly below the lamp component or on a side wall of the room.
Hashimoto teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) the lamp component (1) is attached to a ceiling of a room (4) via the attachment portion (adhesive on the rear of 1), and the directional light source (21) is located on a floor of the room directly below the lamp component or on a side wall of the room (3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the lamp component is attached to a ceiling of a room via the attachment portion, and the directional light source is located on a floor of the room directly below the lamp component or on a side wall of the room, such as taught or suggested by Hashimoto, in order to improve or otherwise increase the marketability of the device (i.e., by providing an embodiment by which the device can be used to light particular features or regions of a room).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Yang (US 2010/0321919 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sato teaches or suggests a lamp device (Figs. 1-16), comprising: a flexible reflective light-emitting portion (800, paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0127]) and a light source portion (10A and/or 10B) away from the flexible reflective light-emitting portion (as shown in Fig. 16), the flexible reflective light-emitting portion (800) has a reflective layer (822) and a transmissive layer (823), and fluorescent excitation substances are provided in the transmissive layer (paragraph [0127]); and when first light (La and Lb) emitted from the light source portion (10A and/or 10B) is incident on the flexible reflective light-emitting portion (800), the fluorescent excitation substances are excited by the first light (by portion Lb of first light La and Lb) to produce second light (L90; paragraph [0131]), and the first light and the second light are mixed to emit light of a predetermined color outward (light of predetermined color La and L90).
Sato does not explicitly teach that the reflective light-emitting portion is connected to the light source portion by a connecting portion, wherein the connecting portion is arranged around an outer edge of the flexible reflective light-emitting portion and includes a groove that accommodates a plurality of directional light sources of the light source portion spaced about the outer edge at a predetermined interval.
Yang teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the reflective light-emitting portion (24) is connected to the light source portion (18) by a connecting portion (20, 30, 32, 50), wherein the connecting portion is arranged around an outer edge of the flexible reflective light-emitting portion (as shown in Fig. 6) and includes a groove (in which 18 is inserted) that accommodates a plurality of directional light sources of the light source portion spaced about the outer edge at a predetermined interval (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 6, and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Sato and incorporated the teachings of the reflective light-emitting portion is connected to the light source portion by a connecting portion, wherein the connecting portion is arranged around an outer edge of the flexible reflective light-emitting portion and includes a groove that accommodates a plurality of directional light sources of the light source portion spaced about the outer edge at a predetermined interval, such as taught or suggested by Yang, in order to reduce the complexity of assembling the device (e.g., by providing a connection feature to maintain pre-alignment or relative positioning of the light source and the reflective light-emitting portion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
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 Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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 (James) 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights