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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/10/25. Examiner acknowledged that claims 21-37 are canceled. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 03/18/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dau (US 2013/0208495).
Regarding Claim 1, Dau teaches a luminaire (Fig. 2A: 200) comprising a first light source and a second light source (Fig. 2A: plurality of 212), the first and second light source operatively configured to provide amounts of light controllable during operation (Fig. 2A: controlled light outputted to optical guide.); and an optical system (Fig. 2A: 230) having an input aperture system (Fig. 2A: 231) and an output aperture system (Fig. 2A: 240, 248), the output aperture system displaced by a predetermined distance (Fig. 2A: D) along a forward direction (Fig. 2A: Z axis) from the input aperture system, the optical system operatively coupled with the first and second light source and configured to direct light received at the input aperture system to the output aperture system, the output aperture system configured to output light from the first light source in first directions (Fig. 2A: 142) and light from the second light source in second directions (Fig. 2A: 142’) at least in part different from the first directions.
Dau does not explicitly teach in Fig. 2A light independently controllable during operation. However, [0389] teaches “The LEEs may be operatively configured to allow independent control of different LEEs and as such allow control of how much light may be converted by different wavelength-conversion materials”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dau in order to independently control the lights since different wavelength conversion material response to illumination differently depending on the degree of mixing and intensity [0389].
Regarding Claim 2, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein the optical system has an elongate extension along a path that is other than straight and extends sideways (Fig. 36P: 3882”) relative to the forward direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 2, wherein the path extends in a plane perpendicular (Fig. 38A: plane 3810) to the forward direction (Fig. 38A: Z direction).
Regarding Claim 4, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein different portions of the output aperture system (Fig. 36U: 3692, 36943697) receive and output different amounts of light (Fig. 36U: different amount of light 3696, 3693’, 3697’, 3697, 3698) from the first and second light sources.
Regarding Claim 5, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 2 further including a light guide (Fig. 1: 120, 140) following the path and optically coupling the input aperture system and the output aperture system (Fig. 1: 131, 132).
Regarding Claim 6, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 5, wherein the light guide includes multiple light guide segments (Fig. 1: segments 120, 140 ) arranged along the path.
Regarding Claim 9, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 2, wherein the path forms a closed loop (Fig. 37: 3477 is a closed loop).
Regarding Claim 10, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 9, wherein the closed loop is a circle (Fig. 37: the end of 3477 is a circle).
Regarding Claim 11, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 2, wherein the path follows a polygon (Fig 38B: 3820 is a polygon).
Regarding Claim 13, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein the optical system is formed as one or more solid transparent bodies ([0187] “Light guide 230 is formed from a piece of transparent material (e.g., glass or a transparent organic plastic, such as polycarbonate or acrylic”).
Regarding Claim 14, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein all output light propagates in backward directions with the first and second directions including obtuse angles relative to the forward direction (Fig. 29C: light are propagating backward).
Regarding Claim 15, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein the first and second light sources include solid state light-emitting elements (Fig. 2A: 212 are LEDs).
Regarding Claim 17, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 5, wherein one or more portions (Fig. 1: 120, 130, 140) of the light guide form part of the output aperture system and are configured to output light.
Regarding Claim 18, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1 further including a light guide with one or more light guide segments each comprising pairs of opposing walls (Fig. 36M: 3882, 3884), and optically coupling the input aperture system and the output aperture system.
Regarding Claim 19, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 18, wherein the light guide segments are formed from a transparent material ([0187] “Light guide 230 is formed from a piece of transparent material (e.g., glass or a transparent organic plastic, such as polycarbonate or acrylic”).
Regarding Claim 20, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 18, wherein the opposing walls flare (Fig. 36O: 3882’ and 3884’ flares) in forward direction.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dau as applied to claims 2, 6 in view of Nichol (US 2011/0255303).
Regarding Claim 7, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 6, except the light guide segments have spiral shapes relative to the forward direction.
Nichol is in the field of lighting (abstract) and teaches the light guide segments have spiral shapes (Fig. 31: 3101; [0186] “input coupler comprises a region of the film rolled up to form a spiral or concentric-circle-like light input edge”) relative to the forward direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dau with the spiral as taught by Nichol in order to change/bend the direction of the light since light traveling through the light guide can be manipulated through internal reflection of the optical guide.
Regarding Claim 12, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 2, except the path undulates or zigzags.
Nichol is in the field of lighting (abstract) and teaches the path undulates or zigzags (Fig. 33: 2971 have zigzags).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dau with the zigzag as taught by Nichol in order to change/bend the direction of the light since light traveling through the light guide can be manipulated through internal reflection of the optical guide.
Regarding Claim 16, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 1, except optical fibers configured to couple the first and second light sources with the input aperture system
Nichol is in the field of lighting (abstract) and teaches optical fibers ([0311] “lightguide comprising a 25 micron thick core layer by threading the film to the light mixing region using a transparent nylon fiber”) configured to couple the first and second light sources with the input aperture system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dau with the optic fiber as taught by Nichol in order to change/bend the direction of the light since light can travel through microstructures and/or nanostructures [0300].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dau as applied to claim 6 in view of Kim (US 2005/0062942).
Regarding Claim 8, Dau teaches the luminaire according to claim 5, wherein the light guide has a coil shape.
Kim is in the field of lighting (abstract) and teaches luminaire according to claim 5, wherein the light guide has a coil shape (Fig. 8A: 30a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dau with the coil as taught by Kim in order to change/bend the direction of the light since light traveling through the light guide can be manipulated through internal reflection of the optical guide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights