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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 14 have been amended. Claims 11 and 13 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-10 and 14-16 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
The objections to Claim 4 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no period (“.”) at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sensor signal" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one control line" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the amendment to independent Claim 1 deleted the recitation of “one control line” and now recites the broader limitation “a control line”. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the
Regarding claim 16, the claim currently depends on Claim 13 which was cancelled in the amendment filed 8/11/2026. For the purpose of examination, Claim 16 has been treated as being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the one powerline" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear if this is referring to a specific powerline of the two powerlines defined in Claim 1, or is intended to refer to both of the two powerlines, rendering the exact scope of the claim unascertainable. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the two s-- to establish proper antecedent basis.
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 1-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 2018/0328543, hereinafter “Bergmann”) in view of Shum (US 9,420,644).
Regarding claim 1, Bergmann teaches an LED filament lamp (LED lamp 100; see Fig. 1; par. [0038]) comprising an envelope enclosing a chamber sealed with a stem (optically transmissive enclosure 102 defines an interior space 108 which is sealed by a stem supporting an LED assembly 300; see Figs. 1-2; para. [0038]-[0040], [0047]), wherein the stem extends into said chamber (as shown in Fig. 1); an LED filament structure configured for multi-channel control with at least two individually controllable segments, including providing tunable white or individual color control of the segments (LED assembly 300 defines an LED filament structure having a plurality of filaments 200 (divided into warmer LED filaments 200w and cooler LED filaments 200c) defining individually controllable segments which emit white light having different color temperatures to control the overall color temperature of the white light output by the LED filament lamp 100; see Figs. 1-4, 13-14; para. [0040]-[0044], [0049]-[0053], [0059]-[0066]); a controller configured to receive a control signal and control each of the at least two individually controllable segments based on said control signal (a controller 714 is provided to control each individual segment 200; see Figs. 13-14; para. [0051]-[0053], [0061]-[0066]), wherein the LED filament structure is arranged within the chamber (as shown in Fig. 1); a driver circuit arranged outside the chamber (a driver 710 is arranged outside the chamber 108 within the base 104; see Figs. 1, 13-14; para. [0038], [0043], [0047], [0063]), wherein the driver circuit comprises two powerlines for powering the LED filament structure and the controller (the driver circuit comprises two power lines (i.e. positive and negative) extending through the stem into the envelope 102 for powering the LED filament structure 300 as well as the controller 714; see Figs. 1, 13-14; para. [0062]-[0063]), wherein each segment of the at least two individually controllable segments is configured to output a lighting characteristic to enable an LED filament lamp with tunable white or individual color control (the LED filament structure 300 comprises warmer LED filaments 200w and cooler LED filaments 200c defining individually controllable segments which emit white light having different color temperatures to control the overall color temperature of the white light output by the LED filament lamp 100; see Figs. 1-4, 13-14; para. [0040]-[0044], [0049]-[0053], [0059]-[0066]), wherein the driver circuit is configured to convey said control signal using the two powerlines or a control line extending through the stem or the envelope (see Figs. 1, 13-14; para. [0038], [0043], [0047], [0063]).
Additionally, Bergmann teaches the controller 714 can be separated from the driver circuitry 710 (see par. [0063]).
However, the teachings of Bergmann fail to disclose or fairly suggest the controller is arranged within the chamber, and the driver circuit is configured to convey said control signal to the controller using the two powerlines or a control line extending through the stem or the envelope.
Shum teaches an LED filament lamp (see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25) comprising an envelope enclosing a chamber sealed with a stem, wherein the stem extends into said chamber (an envelope (4710 in Fig. 47B) encloses a chamber sealed with a stem (feed through 4604), wherein the stem extends into said chamber and supports an LED module 4712; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 40-46, 59-64); an LED filament structure with at least two individually controllable segments (LED module 4712 comprises a plurality of individually controllable segments/filaments 4701, 4702, 4703, 4704; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25); a controller configured to receive a control signal and control each of the at least two individually controllable segments based on said control signal (parallel series switching block 4713 is a controller which receives a control signal from a driver 4711, and functions and operates similarly to the parallel/series switch of Fig. 43 which uses transistor switching elements Q6 and Q7 as well as diode D13 to interpret (i.e. decode) the control signal to determine how to control the flow of current to each individual filament segment of the LED filament structure 4712, and additionally includes the current control elements “CR” or 4503 of Fig. 45A which can be microcontrollers (i.e. processors) provided on each individual filament element 4701-4704 of the filament module; see Figs. 43, 45A-45B, 47A-47B; col. 28, lines 60-67; col. 29, lines 1-16; col. 30, lines 40-67; col. 31, lines 1-39, 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25), wherein the LED filament structure and the controller are arranged within the chamber (the LED filament structure 4712, and all of the various controllers 4713 and processors CR/4503 are arranged within the chamber; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25); a driver circuit arranged outside the chamber (driver 4711 is arranged outside the chamber within the lamp base 4605 of the bulb; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 40-50, 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25), wherein the driver circuit comprises two powerlines for powering the LED filament structure and the controller (positive and negative power lines extend from the driver circuit 4711 through the stem 4604 into the envelope 4710 to power the LED filament structure 4712, the controllers 4713, the processors CR/4503, and everything else; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 40-50, 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25), wherein the driver circuit is configured to convey said control signal to the controller using the two powerlines or a control line extending through the stem or the envelope (the controllers 4713 and processors CR/4503 are electrically connected to the driver circuit 4711 via positive and negative power lines extending from the driver through the stem 4604 into the envelope 4710, so that the controllers and processors receive predetermined control signals from the driver and selectively control each filament of the LED filament structure 4712,; see Figs. 47A-47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25).
Therefore, in view of Shum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamp of Bergmann by arranging the controller within the chamber and configuring the driver circuit to convey said control signal to the controller using the two powerlines or a control line extending through the stem or the envelope. One would have been motivated to modify the known lamp of Bergmann by arranging the controller within the chamber and configuring the driver circuit to convey said control signal to the controller using the two powerlines or a control line extending through the stem or the envelope, as taught by Shum, in order to reduce the amount of heat generated within the lamp base by moving the control electronics closer to the filaments and leaving just the driver circuit in the base (see Shum, col. 31, lines 53-58 for the motivation).
Regarding claim 2, although the combined teachings of Bergmann modified by Shum fail to specifically disclose the control line is a separate control line extending through the stem, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamp of Bergmann by separating the control line from the power lines to provide the control line as a separate control line extending through the stem, since it has been held by the courts that making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so desired, would require only ordinary skill. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, since the control line can only be provided either combined with at least one of the power lines or separate from the power lines, further modifying the known lamp of Bergmann by providing the control line as a separate control line extending through the stem would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to more easily repair the control line if necessary.
Regarding claim 3, Shum further teaches wherein at least one of the two power lines is configured as the control line (the power lines and control line extending from the driver circuit 4711 to the LED filament structure 4712, the controllers 4713, and the processors CR/4503 are combined; see Fig. 47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25).
Regarding claim 4, Shum further teaches wherein the driver circuit is configured to transmit said control signal to the control via Power Line Communication (PLC) (the power lines and control line extending from the driver circuit 4711 to the LED filament structure 4712, the controllers 4713, and the processors CR/4503 are combined; see Figs. 47B; col. 31, lines 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25).
Regarding claim 5, Bergmann teaches wherein the LED filament structure comprises at least two LED filaments, wherein each LED filament of the at least two LED filaments comprises a respective segment of the at least two individually controllable segments (a plurality of LED filaments 200 are arranged as warmer LED filaments 200w and cooler LED filaments 200c are provided; see Figs. 1-4, 13-14; para. [0040]-[0044], [0049]-[0053], [0059]-[0066]).
However, regarding claim 6, the teachings of Bergmann’s first embodiment fail to disclose or fairly suggest the LED filament structure comprises a single LED filament comprising the at least two individually controllable segments.
Bergmann teaches another embodiment wherein the LED filament structure comprises a single LED filament comprising the at least two individually controllable segments (another example embodiment shows a warmer LED filament 200w and a cooler LED filament 200c bonded together to form a single filament with at least two individually controllable segments on opposing sides thereof; see Figs. 8-9; par. [0053]).
Therefore, in view of the alternate embodiment of Bergmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamp of Bergmann’s first embodiment by providing in the LED filament structure a single LED filament comprising the at least two individually controllable segments. One would have been motivated to modify the known lamp of Bergmann’s first embodiment by providing in the LED filament structure a single LED filament comprising the at least two individually controllable segments, as taught by the alternate embodiment of Bergmann, in order to prevent light from a segment having a cooler color temperature from blocking light from a segment having a warmer color temperature (see Bergmann, par. [0053] for the motivation).
Regarding claim 7, Bergmann teaches wherein the LED filament structure comprises five individually controllable segments (the LED filament structure 300 comprises at least six individually controllable warmer LED filaments 200w and at least six individually controllable cooler LED filaments 200c; see Figs. 1-2; para. [0040]-[0044], [0049]-[0053], [0059]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Shum further teaches wherein the LED filament structure and the controller are mounted on the stem; or wherein the LED filament structure is mounted on the stem and the controller is part of the LED filament structure (the LED filament structure 4712, the controllers 4713, and the processors CR/4503 are mounted on top of the stem 4604, as shown in Fig. 47B).
Regarding claim 9, Bergmann teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a monitoring signal indicative of a status of at least one of the at least two controllable segments and to convey said monitoring signal via said control line to the driver circuit (an internal light sensor (not shown) can be provided to provide feedback to the controller 714 and convey this information to the driver 710; see Figs. 13-14; par. [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Bergmann as modified teaches a luminaire comprising a socket for powering a lighting device and the LED filament lamp according to claim 1, wherein the LED filament lamp is arranged within the socket (the LED lamp 100 includes a standard Edison-type screw connector base 104 for connecting to a standard light bulb socket to power the lamp; see Fig. 1; par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Bergmann teaches the LED filament lamp further including a sensor, and wherein the controller is configured to receive a sensor signal and control each of the at least two individually controllable segments based on a decoded control signal and said sensor signal (the controller 714 can direct a separate driver circuit for each type of LED filament in accordance with feedback from an internal light sensor; see par. [0063]).
However, the teachings of Bergmann fail to specifically disclose the sensor is arranged within the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lamp of Bergmann by arranging the sensor within the chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, modifying the known lamp of Bergmann by arranging the sensor within the chamber would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to best position the sensor to monitor the light output by each filament segment during operation of the lamp while ensuring the sensor isn’t exposed to the external environment and potential contaminants.
Regarding claims 15-16, Bergmann teaches wherein the LED structure includes at least three individually controllable segments that are individually controlled via the one control line (or for Claim 16, via the two powerlines) (see Figs. 1, 13-14; para. [0038], [0043], [0047], [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to amended Claim 1 based on Shum (US 9,420,644) that “Claim 1 recites the limitation of (emphasis added): “a LED filament structure configured for multi-channel control with at least two individually controllable segments, including providing tunable white or individual color control of the segments” and that “Shum fails to teach or imply the above limitations” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 5-6), the Examiner notes that Shum has not been relied on to teach these limitations of amended Claim 1 and therefore Applicant’s argument is moot.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Bergmann (US 2018/0328543) and Shum that “The Office Action indicates (paraphrasing) that it would have been obvious to modify Bergmann to incorporate Shum’s “switches” arranged within the chamber to arrive at the present invention. Applicants respectfully disagree”, and that “Shum does not teach a controller (inside the envelope of the bulb) to “to receive a control signal and control each of the at least two individually controllable segments based on said control signal, wherein each segment of the at least two individually controllable segments is configured to output a lighting characteristic to enable an LED filament lamp with tunable white or individual color control, wherein the LED filament structure and the controller are arranged within the chamber” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that Applicant has acknowledged that “Bergmann teaches an LED filament structure configured for multi-channel control with at least two individually controllable segments, as noted in the Office Action” (see Applicant’s Remarks, bottom of pg. 6). However, as previously explained, while Bergmann indicates the controller 714 can be separated from the driver circuitry 710 within the lamp base 104 if needed (par. [0063]), Bergmann does not specifically describe the controller being arranged within the chamber 108.
As previously explained, Shum teaches in the embodiment of Figs. 47A-47B that the LED lamp comprises a parallel series switching block 4713, which is a controller that receives a control signal from a driver 4711 and functions and operates similarly to the parallel/series switch of Fig. 43 that uses transistor switching elements Q6 and Q7 as well as diode D13 to interpret/decode the control signal to determine how to control the flow of current to each individual filament segment of the LED module 4712, and the LED lamp also comprises current control elements “CR” or 4503 (shown in Fig. 45A), which are microcontrollers/processors provided on each individual filament element 4701-4704 of the filament module, all of which are positioned inside the envelope 4710 (see Figs. 43, 45A-45B, 47A-47B, col. 28, lines 60-67; col. 29, lines 1-16; col. 30, lines 40-67; col. 31, lines 1-39, 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25). Accordingly, Shum explicitly describes numerous controllers 4713 and CR/4503 disposed inside the envelope 4710 to control the filament segments of the LED module 4712.
Shum even provides an explanation for why these various controllers 4713 and CR/4503 should be placed inside the envelope 4710, explaining that this reduces the amount of heat generated within the lamp base by moving the control electronics closer to the filaments inside the lamp envelope and leaving just the driver circuitry in the base (see Shum, col. 31, lines 53-58 for the motivation).
Accordingly, Shum clearly and explicitly teaches “a controller configured to receive a control signal and control each of the at least two individually controllable segments based on said control signal, wherein the LED filament structure and the controller are arranged within the chamber”, exactly as recited in amended Claim 1, and Shum also provides a clear motivation for why the controller should be placed within the chamber of the envelope. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann in view of Shum has been maintained.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Therefore, given the disclosure of Bergmann, the skilled person would not be incident to apply this aspect of Shum because it would seem incompatible with the individual (multi-channel) control which is essential to the invention of Bergmann” and that “As provided above, a key aspect of the present invention relates to providing LED based lighting with multi-channel control, such as controlling multiple segments of a LED light source for e.g. providing tunable white or individual color control. However, if additional control of the segments of the LED filament(s) is required, the number of electrical connections through the glass stem of the bulb needs to increase. For N segments, N+1 electrical connections are required through the glass stem. For example, six electrical connections through the glass stem are required to control five segments individually and independently. Thus, the present invention does not simply move components (e.g. a controller) within the chamber, but recognizes a need in the art regarding such lamps to reduce costs to manufacturing, reduce complexity and lessen the burden of conventional manufacturing methods, and increase the reliability of the stem of the bulb. The combination of Shum and Bergmann fails to teach, imply or recognize the above” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 7-8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “However, if additional control of the segments of the LED filament(s) is required, the number of electrical connections through the glass stem of the bulb needs to increase. For N segments, N+1 electrical connections are required through the glass stem. For example, six electrical connections through the glass stem are required to control five segments individually and independently. Thus, the present invention does not simply move components (e.g. a controller) within the chamber, but recognizes a need in the art regarding such lamps to reduce costs to manufacturing, reduce complexity and lessen the burden of conventional manufacturing methods, and increase the reliability of the stem of the bulb.”; see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 7-8) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, there is no language in Claim 1 relating the number of segments of the LED filament structure to the number of required electrical connections required to be present through the glass stem. Applicant’s argument is narrower than the scope of Claim 1.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Accordingly, applicants respectfully submit that the combination of Shum and Bergmann would not have been obvious to a skilled person at the time of the invention, without improper hindsight of the present invention” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 8), the Examine respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, the Examiner notes that pg. 2, lines 5-6 of the Specification as filed states “Multi-channel control may thereby also be phrased as multi-segment control. US2018/328543A1 and US 9420644B1 disclose examples of a LED filament lamp” (see Applicant’s Specification, pg. 2, lines 5-6, which corresponds to par. [0005] of this application’s corresponding US Pre-Grant Publication, US 20250237361). Accordingly, both Bergmann and Shum are specifically mentioned in Applicant’s Specification as being Prior Art.
Additionally, Bergmann was published 11/15/2018, and Shum was published 8/16/2016, which are both prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. While Bergmann is silent about the controller being located in the envelope, Shum teaches in the embodiment of Figs. 47A-47B that the LED lamp comprises a parallel series switching block 4713, which is a controller that receives a control signal from a driver 4711 and functions and operates similarly to the parallel/series switch of Fig. 43 that uses transistor switching elements Q6 and Q7 as well as diode D13 to interpret/decode the control signal to determine how to control the flow of current to each individual filament segment of the LED module 4712, and the LED lamp also comprises current control elements “CR” or 4503 (shown in Fig. 45A), which are microcontrollers/processors provided on each individual filament element 4701-4704 of the filament module, all of which are positioned inside the envelope 4710 (see Figs. 43, 45A-45B, 47A-47B, col. 28, lines 60-67; col. 29, lines 1-16; col. 30, lines 40-67; col. 31, lines 1-39, 63-67; col. 32, lines 1-25). Accordingly, Shum explicitly describes numerous controllers 4713 and CR/4503 disposed inside the envelope 4710 to control the filament segments of the LED module 4712, and that it was known to do so more than three years prior to the foreign priority date of the instant application (i.e., the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Therefore, since all the features discussed in Bergmann and Shum were known years prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the combination of Bergmann in view of Shum does not rely on improper hindsight reasoning in any way and would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the rejection of Claim 1 relies solely on knowledge which was well-known years prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights