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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment of disclosure filed on 5/20/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, the amended Claims are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-15, it is noted that figure numbers and/or references thereto are utilized throughout these claims. As it is apparent that the invention can be defined in words, it is requested that such figure numbers be removed. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), MPEP 2173.05(s).
Regarding Claims 2, 7, 8, 12, and 15, The use of the term “preferably”, while not amounting to indefiniteness as it is understood in context, the Claims should instead simply recite that which is preferable.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, the use of and/or language, while not indefinite as A and/or B for instance does have a meaning, the preferred verbiage should be more simply “at least one of A and B.” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, both claims recite “the recess depth” and “the recess diameter” for which basis in not provided for in claim 1 from which they depend, however, as it is readily apparent that these claims instead depend from Claim 6 for which basis is provided, such not amounting to indefiniteness, these claims will be considered to depend from Claim 6 accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daegwangnaitek (KR 101160881 B1, as cited in the IDS, machine translation utilized and provided herewith).
In regards to Claim 1, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, a lighting device (Figures 1-3 and 6), in particular for illuminating an interior (such illustrating a light bulb), comprising: a lighting means (50);a light distribution body (80) having a light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) and a translucent light exit region (outside of 80);wherein the light distribution body (80) is substantially spherical and is designed to emit a first part of the light emitted by the lighting means (50) and introduced into the light distribution body (80) via the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) in a directed manner, and to scatter a second part of the introduced light by means of the light distribution body (80), so that the light emerges in a diffuse manner substantially over the entire light exit region (outside of 80) of the light distribution body (80, Abstract), wherein the light distribution body (80) is of solid design (see Fig. 2), and wherein the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) is the interface between a recess (810) of the light distribution body (80) and the light distribution body (80, see Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 2, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the recess (810) comprises a first part (850, see Figs. 2 and 6), which preferably has the shape of a spherical element (Fig. 6), a cone or a flattening (Fig. 2), wherein the shape can be both positive and negative (see Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 3, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the recess (810) comprises a second part (cylindrical wall of 810, see Figs. 2 and 6), which is shaft-shaped or substantially cylindrical (see Figs. 2 and 6), wherein the first part (61) is arranged at an end of the second part facing away from the lighting means (50, see Figs. 2 and 6).
In regards to Claim 4, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the surface of the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) is completely and/or partially roughened and/or frosted (850 being a “diffuse reflection layer”, see Page 5, is considered to meet the limitation as claimed).
In regards to Claim 5, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, a reflector element (850) for modifying the ratio of directed and diffuse emission of the light distribution body (80), wherein the reflector element (850) is formed by a partially or completely reflecting layer frosted (850 being a “diffuse reflection layer”, see Page 5, is considered to meet the limitation as claimed), which is arranged in the interior of the light distribution body (80) or at the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810, see Figs. 2 and 6); and/or scattering centers (at 850) for modifying the ratio of directed and diffuse emission of the light distribution body (80), wherein the scattering centers (at 850) are formed in the interior of the light distribution body (80, again 850 being a “diffuse reflection layer”, see Page 5, is considered to meet the limitation as claimed).
In regards to Claim 9, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, a light guide (70) which is designed to guide light emitted by the lighting means (50) to the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) of the light distribution body (80, see Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 10, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the light exit region (outside of 80) of the light distribution body (80) is formed by a frosted surface (80, being a “diffuser”, see bottom of Page 4, is considered to meet the limitation as claimed).
In regards to Claim 11, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the light coupling-in surface (surfaces of 810) is formed by a smoothly ground or polished region on the surface of the light distribution body (the interior walls of 810 are considered to meet this limitation, noting the “diffusing” aspect is provided for by 850).
In regards to Claim 12, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the lighting means (50) is formed by one or more LEDs (50 illustrates an LED) and is preferably designed as an LED cluster or LED-RGB module (see Fig. 2 illustrating 50 as a cluster/module as claimed).
In regards to Claim 13, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, the light distribution body (80) has regions with a reflection coating on its surface (850 at surface of 810, see Figs. 2 and 6), which is designed to partially or completely reflect light which propagates in the interior of the light distribution body (80) and impinges on the reflection coating (850 being a “diffuse reflection layer”, see Page 5, is considered to meet the limitation as claimed).
In regards to Claim 14, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, a holder (750) in which the light distribution body (80) is mounted rotatably about its center point (via 820, see Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 15, Daegwangnaitek discloses in Figures 1-3 and 6, a dome (30) which encloses the light distribution body (80, see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the dome (30) preferably has surface regions with different transmittance (albeit optional, such would naturally be the case based on the output of light from 80, alternatively the portion of 30 blocked by 20 will alter the transmittance therethrough) which preferably have partially reflecting coatings and are designed to modify the emission characteristic of the light distribution body (80, albeit optional, the portion of 30 blocked by 20 will alter the transmittance therethrough by at least partially reflecting the light).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daegwangnaitek.
In regard to claims 6-8, Daegwangnaitek teaches in Figures 1-3 and 6, the recess (810) in the light distribution body (80) has a recess depth (height of 810 as oriented in Figs. 2 and 6, hereinafter height) and a recess diameter (width of 810 as oriented in Figs. 2 and 6, hereinafter width), wherein the recess diameter (width) corresponds to the maximum diameter of the recess (810) at an end of the recess (810) facing the lighting means (see Figs. 2 and 6) as recited in Claim 6, but fails to disclose or fairly suggest the recess diameter (D) and the recess depth (T) are each smaller than or equal to the radius of the light distribution body as recited in Claim 6, the recess depth (T) is larger than, preferably twice as large as, the recess diameter (D) as recited in Claim 7, and the recess diameter (D) is smaller than a third of the radius of the light distribution body (80), preferably smaller than a quarter, more preferably smaller than a fifth, more preferably smaller than a tenth as recited in Claim 8.
However, while not necessarily to scale, Daegwangnaitek would appear to imply the recess diameter (width) and the recess depth (height) are each smaller than or equal to the radius of the light distribution body (see Fig. 2) as recited in Claim 6, the recess depth (height) is larger than, preferably twice as large as, the recess diameter (width, see Fig. 2) as recited in Claim 7, and the recess diameter (width) is smaller than a third of the radius of the light distribution body (80, see Fig. 2), preferably smaller than a quarter, more preferably smaller than a fifth, more preferably smaller than a tenth as recited in Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the depth and diameter of the recess of Daegwangnaitek, in order to provide for the desired optical output of the device. Further, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review the cited references found on the PTO-892, namely Beierschmitt et al. (US 6,132,345), Chen (US 2008/0265736), Hulse (US 7,663,315), Hulse et al. (US 7,686,478), Wu et al. (US 2010/0148650), Shinohara (US 2012/0020085), Hulse (US 8,109,656), Falicoff et al. (US 8,322,896), Yoo (US 2013/0051061), Lin et al. (US 2013/0121002), Udatsu et al. (US 2013/0279149), Ansems ety al. (US 2024/0337355), and 손재설 (KR 101449949 B1), which teaches either alone or in combination lighting devices with LEDs, distribution body, coupling-in surface, light exit surface, recess with first and second parts, holder, dome, and diffusive properties, similar to that which is currently claimed above and disclosed by Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER K GARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER K GARLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights