DETAILED ACTION
Supplemental Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Supplemental Amendment filed May 1, 2026. Claims 2-3, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 20 and 22-23 are amended. Claims 24-28 are new. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soler et al (US 2020/0332969) in view of Chen (US 8,469,580).
Regarding claim 1, Soler discloses a light panel comprising: a planar panel body 1340 (see paras [0082] and [0096] which specifically teach that body 1340 can be a rectangular prism which by definition is a planar body with six flat rectangular faces and three pairs of identical, opposing flat surfaces; also teaches that the LED’s “emit light into the edges of the panel and the panel serves as a light guide”) defining a light-mixing region (at least L3 region, see Fig. 13; or all regions L1,L2,L3) and having an emission surface (top rectangular surface of body 1340) for emitting emitted light, a surface opposite said emission surface (surface opposite light emission surface), a first side edge, and a second side edge opposite said first side edge; a first light source 1310 disposed along said first side edge and configured to emit a first light having a first color into said light-mixing region in a first direction substantially parallel to said emission surface; a second light source 1320 disposed along said second side edge and configured to emit a second light having a second color into said light-mixing region in a second direction substantially parallel to said emission surface and generally opposite said first direction; wherein said first and second light sources are independently controllable (see at least paras [0104] and [0112] which teaches dimmers/controllers that can adjust the wavelengths and intensities of first and second light engine to achieve various lighting modes); wherein said first and second light mix in said light-mixing region and are emitted through said emission surface as said emitted light to create a color gradient across said emission surface between said first and second colors; and wherein said color gradient extends from said first side edge toward said second side edge (see at least Figure 13 and paras [0077]-[0096]).
Although implied in order to have light exit through one emission surface of the rectangular prism, Soler does not specifically teach that the surface opposite the emission surface be reflective. However reflective surfaces opposite emission surfaces in planar panel bodies are well-known in the art and taught in Chen (see Chen, at least Figures 1-2 and column 3, lines 24-25; reflective bottom surface 12b with reflective sheet 17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the surface opposite the light emission surface in Soler be reflective as taught by Chen in order to prevent light leakage through the bottom surface and increase the brightness and efficiency through the light emission surface of the rectangular prism.
Regarding claim 4, the first light source 1310 and second light source 1320 in Soler are configured in at least a first mode, wherein the first light is pale blue at a first intensity, and the second light is cool white (see at least para [0079] which teaches that first light 1310 can be greater than 7K and second light 1320 can be less than 6500K, thus first light 1310 can be pale blue at over 9K and the second light 1320 can be cool white around 6K).
Regarding claim 5, the first light source 1310 and second light source 1320 in Soler can be configured in a second mode, wherein the first light is pale blue at a second intensity (see again paras [0104] and [0112] which teach dimmers/controllers to vary intensities) or violet/blue, and the second light is orange/amber (see para [0079] which teaches second light source 1320 can emit orange color).
Regarding claim 6, the first intensity in Soler can be higher than the second intensity (the dimmer/controller inherently can produce a higher intensity at a first mode than in a second mode).
Regarding claim 7, the pale blue in Soler can be 9K-30K, the cool white can be between 3100K and 8K and the orange/amber can be 1500 to 3K (see at least para [0079]).
Regarding 8, the pale blue in Soler can be 5K-12K, the cool white can be between 3100K and 4500K and the orange/amber can be 1500 to 3K (see at least para [0079]).
Regarding claim 9, the panel in Soler can include at least one driver (“controller that implements dimming profiles”; see at least paras [0095], [0104] and [0112]) for driving the first and second light sources 1310,1320, wherein the at least one driver is configured to independently control at least one of color or intensity of the first and second light sources.
Regarding claim 10, the at least one driver in Soler is configured to transition the first and second light sources 1310,1320 from the first mode to the second mode (see at least paras [0095], [0104] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 12, the transition in Soler is continuous (see at least para [0112]).
Regarding claim 13, the color of the top light source 1310 in Soler is configured to vary from pale blue to violet/blue and the color of the bottom light source 1320 is configured to vary from cool white to orange/amber (see at least para [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, the top light source 1310 in Soler can transition from violet/blue to pale blue to violet/blue and finally to off, and the bottom light source 1320 can transition from orange/amber to cool white to orange/amber and finally off (see at least paras [0079], [0104] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 16, the transition of the top and bottom light sources 1310,1320 in Soler is controlled through an application, an on-fixture dimmer, a wall dimmer, or a timer synched to the date-time (see at least paras [0104]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 18, the at least one driver in Soler comprises simple dimming functionality to change the intensity of at least one of the first or second light sources 1310,1320 without changing color (see at least paras [0104]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 20, Soler does not specifically teach that the driver comprise at least two drivers configured to independently vary at least the color or the intensity of the first and second light sources 1310,1320. However providing a plurality of drivers is common in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the light sources 1310,1320 have dedicated drivers in order to achieve the stated objective of individually controlling light sources 1310,1320 to produce various light spectra throughout the day, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 21, the first and second light sources 1310,1320 in Soler can be light bars (see at least Fig. 13 and para [0082]).
Regarding claim 22, the first light source 1310 in Soler can be selected from the recited group (see at least paras [0079] and [0095]).
Regarding claim 23, the second light source 1320 in Soler can be selected from the recited group (see at least para [0079]; above 1800K high CRI for sunrise/sunset modes).
Regarding claim 24, the panel in Soler is configured to deliver at least 125, or at least 150, or at least 200, or at least 250 melanopic lux in the first mode (see at least Figures 25-26C).
Regarding claim 25, Soler generally teaches a controller that can vary the emission of blue light from the panel to different wavelengths and intensities of blue light in different modes (see at least paras [0101]-[0104]), but does not specifically teach the claimed range of corneal illuminance in the first and second modes. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the claimed ranges of corneal illuminance of blue light be achieved in a first and second mode in order to achieve the stated objective of benefitting different population types to mediate undesired physicological effects such as migraines and photophobia, and since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26, Soler discloses a light panel system comprising a plurality of light panels according to claim 1 and a controller configured to synchronize the plurality of light panels 1340 such that the color gradient appears continuous across the plurality of light panels (see at least para [0083] which teaches a plurality of panels 1340 can be joined together to achieve a continuous diffuser and thus achieve the same visual effect of gradient mixing).
Regarding claim 27, the planar panel body in Soler comprises a waveguide having first and second edges, and wherein the first and second light sources 1310,1320 are optically coupled to first and second edges of the waveguide (see at least Fig. 13 and paras [0082] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 28, as modified above, the waveguide in Soler comprises the emission surface and the reflective surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 1, 2026 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections set forth above, said new grounds being necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that Soler does not teach a planar panel body having the recited surfaces and edges. As noted above, Soler specifically teaches in paras [0082] and [0096] that body 1340 which emits light can be a rectangular prism which by definition has six flat rectangular faces and three pairs of identical, opposing flat surfaces. Moreover, Soler teaches that the LED’s “emit light into the edges of the panel and the panel serves as a light guide”. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully submits that at least claim 1 is unpatentable over Soler in view of Chen.
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 SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights