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 .
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the invisible light includes photons with wavelengths in a range between approximately 400 nm and approximately 440 nm."
However, this limitation is unclear because wavelength in a range of 400-440 generally corresponds to the visible range(i.e., violet light), rather than in the invisible spectrum. Accordingly, the recited features of "invisible light" and “photons” with wavelength in a range between approximately 400 nm and approximately 440 nm appear to be inconsistent or mutually exclusive.
Therefore, it is unclear what the subject matter the applicant intended to claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (US 2017/0009956) in view of JUESTEL (WO 20091/04136 hereinafter refer as “JUESTEL”).
Regarding claim 1. Nichols discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device comprising: a substrate (one substrate or the same die, see Para. 0025); a white LED (102/202, see Fig. 1, Para. 0020, 0023) on the substrate at a location configured for alignment with an optical axis of an automotive lamp when installed; and a ultraviolet LED (101/201, see Fig. 1, Para. 0020, 0023) on the substrate at a location spaced apart from the white LED by an amount such that the ultraviolet LED is defocused from the optical axis of the automotive lamp when installed such that the near ultraviolet LED emits energy in the ultraviolet band (e.g. further UV illumination 404 that is wider than angle 403) in a larger area than the white LED when powered on (see Fig. 4, Para. 0027).
Regarding the claim limitation “a white LED on the substrate at a location configured for alignment with an optical axis of an automotive lamp when installed”, the applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that the recitation that an element is adapted to (configured to) perform a function or serve in a given application is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. In this case, “an automotive lamp” is not part of the claimed entity.
Regarding the claim limitation that the ultraviolet LED is “a near ultraviolet,” Nichols teaches the use of UV radiation (303) is converted into visible light, as illustrated with the lines emanating from surface (304, see Para. 0021).
However, Nichols is silent with respect to the ultraviolet LED is a near ultraviolet.
JUESTEL taches a General Lighting Services (GLS) lamp (100) comprising two different types of LEDs (21, 22), a first LEDs (21) emitting with a near UV spectrum and a second LED (22) emitting a white spectrum (Abstract).
Therefore, in view of JUESTEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols by replacing its ultraviolet LED with a near ultraviolet. Selecting a near ultraviolet LED would have been substitution of one known type of UV light source for another, yielding the expected result of providing UV excitation for visible light conversion, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one skill in the art would use near UV interchangeably where appropriate and it would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elzinga et al. (US 2016/0319999 hereinafter refer as “Elzinga”) in view of JUESTEL.
Regarding claim 1. Elzinga discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device comprising: a substrate (single lead frame, see Para. 0037); a white LED (e.g. low-beam LED dies 14, see Fig. 1, Para. 0036, 0066) on the substrate at a location configured for alignment with an optical axis of an automotive lamp when installed (e.g. reflector 28, see Fig. 3, Para. 0044 and 0047); and a second LED (e.g. LED 16 that may emit UV light, see Figs. 1-3, Para. 0066) on the substrate at a location spaced apart from the white LED (see Figs. 1-3, Para. 0047).
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to the second LED (e.g. 16) is a near ultraviolet and the second LED spaced apart by an amount such that the second LED is defocused from the optical axis of the automotive lamp when installed such that the second LED emits energy in the ultraviolet band in a larger area than the white LED when powered on.
JUESTEL taches a General Lighting Services (GLS) lamp (100) comprising two different types of LEDs (21, 22), a first LEDs (21) emitting with a near UV spectrum and a second LED (22) emitting a white spectrum (Abstract).
Therefore, in view of JUESTEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by replacing its ultraviolet LED with a near ultraviolet. Selecting a near ultraviolet LED would have been substitution of one known type of UV light source for another, yielding the expected result of providing UV excitation for visible light conversion, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one skill in the art would use near UV interchangeably where appropriate and it would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 2. Elzinga further discloses the LED lighting device further comprises a centering ring (rotatable sleeve 89, see Fig. 2, Para. 0075), and the white LED is configured to emit light in a wavelength range between approximately 440 nm and approximately 495 nm (i.e., blue light wavelength is known to be between 450-475 nm) when powered on, and is spaced apart by a distance D from a reference surface on the centering ring that aligns the white LED with an optical axis of the LED lighting device. Furthermore. light with a wavelength between 440-495 provides the same effects as UV light
JUESTEL further taches the second LED (22) may be a blue LED with peak emission between 460 and 470 nm.
Regarding claim 3. Elzinga further discloses the second LED dies and the third LED dies are both spaced away from the first LED dies (see claim 24).
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to the near ultraviolet LED is offset from the centering ring by a distance in the range of D minus 3 mm to D plus 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by arranging the near ultraviolet LED to be offset from the centering ring by a distance in the claimed range in order to provide a desired illumination pattern, 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.
Regarding claim 4. Elzinga further discloses the substrate (single lead frame, see Para. 0037) is mechanically coupled to a member (e.g. wall 32 and socket 25, see Figs. 1 and 3, Para. 0045) that is disposed through the centering ring.
Regarding claim 5. Elzinga in view of JUESTEL further discloses the near ultraviolet LED is configured to emit enough energy in a wavelength range between approximately 400 nm and approximately 440 nm when powered on to activate fluorescent agents in objects in the larger area. Furthermore. light with a wavelength between 440-440 provides the same effects as UV light.
Regarding claim 6. Elzinga further discloses the LED lighting device is an LED retrofit device configured to replace a single filament halogen bulb (see Para. 0008).
Regarding claim 7. Elzinga further discloses the near ultraviolet LED is an LED package that comprises at least some LEDs configured to emit in the wavelength between approximately 440 nm and approximately 495 nm (i.e., blue light wavelength is known to be between 450-475 nm). Furthermore. light with a wavelength between 440-495 provides the same effects as UV light.
JUESTEL further taches the second LED (22) may be a blue LED with peak emission between 460 and 470 nm.
Regarding claim 8. Elzinga further discloses comprising a first optical element, wherein the white LED is aligned with an optical axis of the first optical element (reflector 28), and wherein the first optical element is at least one of a total internal reflection (TIR) lens or a reflector (see Fig. 3, Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 9. Elzinga in view of JUESTEL further discloses the white LED and the near ultraviolet LED share a common second optical element (e.g. reflector 28, reflective aluminum layer 29, see Fig. 3, Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 10. Elzinga discloses a method of operating a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting system, the method comprising: powering on a first LED (e.g. low-beam LED dies 14, see Fig. 1, Para. 0036, 0066) to illuminate a first region of a roadway with visible light (e.g. blue light); and powering on a second LED (16) to energize the first region of the roadway.
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to a second region of the roadway that extends beyond the first region of the roadway with invisible light by defocusing energy emitted by the second LED with respect to an optical axis of the LED lighting system.
JUESTEL taches a General Lighting Services (GLS) lamp (100) comprising two different types of LEDs (21, 22), a first LEDs (21) emitting with a near UV spectrum and a second LED (22) emitting a white spectrum (Abstract). JUESTEL further taches powering on a second LED to energize the first region of the roadway and a second region of the roadway that extends beyond the first region of the roadway with invisible light by defocusing energy emitted by the second LED with respect to an optical axis of the LED lighting system.
Therefore, in view of JUESTEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by replacing the second LED with an invisible light such as an ultraviolet (UV) LED and by defocusing energy emitted by the second LED with respect to an optical axis of the LED lighting system for realizing a wide beam angle, since such modification would have constituted the substitution of one known illumination source for another and the application of a known illumination technique to achieve the predictable result of providing invisible illumination while reducing glare or directing the emitted energy as desired and it is one of a straightforward design option being to defocus light beams with respect to an optical axis of a LED lighting system, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one skill in the art would have recognized that UV light is a well-known type of invisible illumination that may be used interchangeably with other invisible light sources where appropriate and it would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 12. Elzinga further discloses the visible light includes photons with wavelengths in a range between approximately 440 nm and approximately 495 nm (i.e., blue light wavelength is known to be between 450-475 nm).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood). Elzinga further discloses the light includes photons with wavelengths in a range between approximately 400 nm and approximately 440 nm.
JUESTEL further taches UV LED type, with an emission peak between 370 and 400 nm.
Regarding claim 14. Elzinga discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device comprising: an optical element (parabolic reflector 28, see Fig. 3, Para. 0044); a centering ring (rotatable sleeve 89, see Fig. 2, Para. 0075); a first white LED (e.g. low-beam LED dies 14, see Figs. 1 and 7, Para. 0036, 0066, Para. 0054) on a substrate (single lead frame, see Para. 0037); the first white LED being aligned with an optical axis of the optical element; a second white LED (e.g. other LED dies 14) spaced apart on the substrate from the first white LED and aligned with an optical axis of the LED lighting device; and a third LED (e.g. LED dies 16) defocused from the optical element such that the third LED emits energy in in a wider area than the first and second white LEDs.
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to the second LED (e.g. 16) is a near ultraviolet and the second LED spaced apart by an amount such that the second LED is defocused from the optical axis of the automotive lamp when installed such that the second LED emits energy in the ultraviolet band in a larger area than the white LED when powered on.
JUESTEL taches a General Lighting Services (GLS) lamp (100) comprising two different types of LEDs (21, 22), a first LEDs (21) emitting with a near UV spectrum and a second LED (22) emitting a white spectrum (Abstract).
Therefore, in view of JUESTEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by replacing the second LED with a near ultraviolet LED and defocusing energy emitted by the second LED with respect to an optical axis of the LED lighting system as a matter of choosing from one of well-known illumination method in the art, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one skill in the art would use near UV interchangeably where appropriate and it would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 15 and 16. Elzinga further discloses the second LED dies and the third LED dies are both spaced away from the first LED dies (see claim 24).
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to the near ultraviolet LED is spaced apart from the reference surface on the centering ring by a distance in the range of D to D minus 3mm and offset from the second white LED by up to plus or minus 2 mm in the lateral direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by arranging the near ultraviolet LED to be offset from the centering ring by a distance in the claimed range in order to provide a desired illumination pattern, 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.
Regarding claim 17. Elzinga further discloses at least one of the first white LED and the second white LED are configured to emit light in a wavelength range between approximately 440 nm and approximately 495 nm when powered on (i.e., blue light wavelength is known to be between 450-475 nm).
Regarding claim 18. Elzinga in view of JUESTEL the near ultraviolet LED is configured to emit energy in a wavelength range between approximately 400 nm and approximately 440 nm when powered on.
Regarding claim 19. Elzinga further discloses the LED lighting device is an LED retrofit device configured to replace a double filament halogen bulb (see Para. 0008).
Regarding claim 20. Elzinga further discloses the substrate (single lead frame, see Para. 0037) is mechanically coupled to a member (e.g. wall 32 and socket 25, see Figs. 1 and 3, Para. 0045) that is disposed through the centering ring.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elzinga in view of JUESTEL and further in view of Nichols.
Regarding claim 11. The teachings of Elzinga have been discussed above.
However, Elzinga is silent with respect to at least some energy emitted by the second LED energizes fluorescent agents in at least one object in or near the roadway such that the at least one object emits light that includes red, yellow, green and blue components when energized by the second LED.
Nichols teaches a fixture (406, see Fig. 4, Para. 022) that includes either emitters (101) and (102), or emitters (201 and 202), that send out an illumination (404) so that fluorescent material (405) will be visually apparent outside of illumination angle (403, see Fig. 4, Para. 0022 and 0023).
Therefore, in view of Nichols, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elzinga by forming at least some energy emitted by the second LED to energize a fluorescent agents in at least one object in or near the roadway thereby the object will be visually apparent outside of illumination angle, as suggested by Nichols. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to improve visibility thus improve safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Itagaki (US 2014/0328079) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device comprising: a substrate (22, see Fig. 9, Para. 0073); MATSUMOTO (US 2018/0306397) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device comprising: a substrate (heat conduction portion 23, see Fig. 1, Para. 0011); a white LED (25, see Fig. 1, Para. 0011) on the substrate at a location configured for alignment with an optical axis of an automotive lamp when installed; and a second LED (26, see Fig. 1, Para. 0011) on the substrate at a location spaced apart from the white LED, Raring et al. (US 2020/0174123) discloses a gallium and nitrogen containing laser diode is configured to emit a first light with a first peak wavelength; D'Incecco et al. (US 2024/0183504) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) lighting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights