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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 17, and 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
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 1-7, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the specifics of claims 9 and 18, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
In regard to claims 1 and 14, these claims are broad. So broad that they read on subject matter outside the scope of its own disclosure, which requires a rejection under 112(a) per In re Mayhew. This is show in the 102 rejection below.
The art is well developed, and the Examiner believes the applicant is trying to claim a particular light distribution. However, in order to properly capture a light distribution, the essential elements of the lighting device must be captured in the independent claim. The only claims in the application that capture all the required optical elements are claims 9 and 18, and they must be included in order for the application to be allowed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth (US 2017/0074467 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Roth discloses a lighting fixture to illuminate a surface, the lighting fixture (Figure 5) comprising:
a first light source (440) configured to generate a first selected light color output; and
a second light source (460) configured to generate a second selected light color output;
wherein the first light source and the second light source are disposed adjacent to one another; and
wherein the first light source to project the first selected light color output towards a first region of the surface and the second light source to project the second selected light color output towards a second region of the surface (the surface is not positively recited in the preamble—a surface directly in front of this array would produce the gradient claimed); and
wherein a first peak intensity of the first light source and a second peak intensity of the second light source having an angle with respect to one another to produce a selected color gradient on the surface (this is very broad, and is a consequence of any two differently colored lights sitting next to each other). (Figure 5; see at least [0050] onward)
In regard to claim 2, Roth discloses the first and second light sources disposed horizontally adjacent to one another with respect to the surface.
In regard to claim 3, Roth discloses the first and second light sources disposed front to back adjacent to one another with respect to the surface.
In regard to claim 4, Roth discloses the angle between the first and second peak intensities occurs in a plane perpendicular to the projection surface and passing through the lighting fixture.
In regard to claim 11, Roth discloses the first and second light sources each include a light emitting diode (LED) or cluster of LED light sources.
In regard to claim 12, Roth discloses the LED light sources are selected from Red, Green, Blue, White, Amber, RGB, RGBW, and RGBA type LED or clusters of LEDs light sources.
In regard to claim 13, Roth discloses the selected color gradient is characterized by S-S-shaped curves representing percentages of the first color and second color projected onto the surface. (The Examiner could draw an “S” in the resulting color gradient along the boundary as these are two circular shapes distributions crossing each other.)
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) 5-7, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 2017/0074467 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Roth fails to disclose the angle between the first and second peak intensities is between 5 and 25 degrees (inclusive). However, this angle is determined by the distance between light sources, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the distance between the light sources in order to optimize the resulting light distribution. This is a result effective variable.
In regard to claim 6 and 7, Roth fails to disclose the first peak intensity is characterized by an asymmetric beam having a beam spread that is 50 degrees or greater as measured by a full width tenth max (FWTM) metric in a plane perpendicular to the projection surface and passing through the lighting fixture, and as recited in claim 7, the second light source is characterized as having a beam spread of 25 degrees or less as measured using a full-width, half max (FWHM) metric in a plane perpendicular to the projection surface and passing through the lighting fixture.
However, this is routine beam shaping, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the beam shape in order to shape the resulting light distribution. This is a result effective variable.
In regard to claim 14, Roth discloses a lighting fixture to illuminate a surface, the lighting fixture (Figure 5) comprising:
a first light source (440) configured to generate a first selected light color output; and
a second light source (460) configured to generate a second selected light color output;
wherein the first light source and the second light source are disposed adjacent to one another; and
wherein the first light source to project the first selected light color output towards a first region of the surface and the second light source to project the second selected light color output towards a second region of the surface (the surface is not positively recited in the preamble—a surface directly in front of this array would produce the gradient claimed); and
wherein a first peak intensity of the first light source and a second peak intensity of the second light source having an angle with respect to one another to produce a selected color gradient on the surface (this is very broad, and is a consequence of any two differently colored lights sitting next to each other). (Figure 5; see at least [0050] onward)
Roth fails to disclose a housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a housing to light source of Roth in order to protect its components.
In regard to claim 15, Roth discloses the first and second light sources disposed horizontally adjacent to one another with respect to the surface.
In regard to claim 16, Roth discloses the first and second light sources disposed front to back adjacent to one another with respect to the surface.
In regard to claim 20, Roth discloses the first and second light sources each include a light emitting diode (LED) or cluster of LED light sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Grassi (US 2015/0345749 A1) disclose a lighting system.
Radl et al (US 2015/0345742 A1) disclose a lighting device.
Caldon et al (US 2014/0177221 A1) disclose a lighting device.
Oepts et al (US 2023/0296223 A1) disclose an LED system.
Van De Sluis et al (US 2024/0142074 A1) disclose a lighting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875