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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/25 has been considered by the examiner.
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 4-7, 11, and 13 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.
These claims recites the limitations from other claims as their dependencies are incorrect. Claims 4-7, as best understood, should be dependent from claim 3. Claim 11 should depend from claim 10. Claim 13 should depend from claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claim limitations in these claims as presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 7, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bachl [US 6299337].
As to claim 1, Bachl discloses a luminaire [see figures 1-3b] comprising at least one light emitting device [each panel acts as a light source] adapted for, in operation, emitting light emitting device light, each of the at least one light emitting device comprising: an array of LED light sources [30], where each LED light source of the array of LED light sources is adapted for, in operation, emitting LED light [see abstract], and where each LED light source of the array of LED light sources comprises an LED package [see 30, figure 3a], and an array of optical elements [22, figure 3b], where the array of optical elements is arranged such that each LED light source of the array of LED light sources is associated with an optical element of the array of optical elements [see figure 3b], wherein each optical element of the array of optical elements is configured to convert the LED light of the associated LED light source into a beam such that the combined LED light of the LED light sources of the array of LED light sources forming the light emitting device light forms a pixelated array [see figures 1, 2], and wherein each of the at least one light emitting devices further comprises a flexible substrate [1], the array of LED light sources being arranged on the flexible substrate, and the array of optical elements being arranged on the array of LED light sources [see figure 3b], wherein the LED light sources of the array of LED light sources are mechanically re-oriented by one or both of the following: the flexible substrate is bent in a predetermined direction [see figure 3b], and one or more subsets of the LED light sources of the array of LED light sources are oriented in a predetermined direction [see figure 3b], such as to provide each of the at least one light emitting device light with a predetermined light pattern [see figure 3b].
As to claim 3, Bachl discloses the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the shape of the flexible substrate bent in a predetermined direction [see figures 1, 3b] and the orientation of the LED light sources of the array of LED light sources in a predetermined direction is fixed by a solid holding device configured to hold the substrate, the array of LED light sources and the array of optical elements [2].
As to claim 7, Bachl discloses the luminaire according to claim 3, wherein the sealed structure or the solid holding device further comprises a support structure [see 2, figure 3b], and wherein the flexible substrate is placed on the support structure in such a way that the flexible substrate is in full surface contact with the support structure [see figure 3b].
As to claim 12, Bachl discloses the luminaire according to claim 1, wherein the array of optical elements is an array of micro-collimators [22, figure 3b]
As to claim 13, Bachl discloses the luminaire according to claim 12, wherein each micro-collimator of the array of micro-collimators comprises a single micro-collimator or a combination of two or more micro-collimators [this is inherent, any set of “A” contains at least one “A”].
As to claim 15, Bachl discloses the luminaire according to claim 1 wherein the at least one light emitting device comprises two light emitting devices [see 2, figure 1[ and wherein the luminaire further comprises a track driver arranged centrally between the at least two light emitting devices [31].
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachl in view of Adams [US 2024/0138320].
As to claim 10, Bachl fails to explicitly disclose wherein the array of optical elements is an array of lenses. Adams teaches implementing lenses on an LED array was well known [see figures, paragraph 51-53]. It would have been obvious to implement the lenses as taught by Adams with the light unit as taught by Bachl, in order to provide light as desired by a user [see Bachl, column 3, lines 3-9].
As to claim 11, Bachl fails to explicitly disclose wherein each lens of the array of lenses comprises a beam angle being in the interval of 30 to 60 degrees FWHM. Adams teaches implementing these types lenses on an LED array was well known [see paragraph 51-53]. It would have been obvious to implement the lenses as taught by Adams with the light unit as taught by Bachl, in order to provide light as desired by a user [see Bachl, column 3, lines 3-9].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: these claims recite elements and limitations which are not taught or disclosed by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pederson, Im, Scordino, Machlis, Kuboyama, Maxik, Woolverton all teach alternative embodiments of light sources which include LEDs, optical elements, and/or a flexible substrate on which the LEDs are mounted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights