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.
Claims 13-15 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. Claim 13 recites “An LED filament according to, and a controller”, in lines 2 and 3. This incomplete recitation renders claim 13 vague and indefinite. Because of their dependency, claims 14 and 15 are necessarily rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " said individually controllable array of blue LEDs said second individually controllable array of blue LEDs and said third individually controllable array " in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 13 is an independent claim and not a dependent claim.
As best understood, the following rejection applies.
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (10,950,585).
Regarding claim 13. Li et al discloses an LED filament lamp (fig. 1) comprising: an LED filament (108) and a controller (Description Fig. 7A, (col. 18, lines 13-26)) wherein said controller is configured to individually control said first individually controllable array of blue LEDs said second individually controllable array of blue LEDs (col. 18, lines 13-26))
Li et al, although disclosing four LED filaments with multiple LEDs contained therein (108iv, 108sub ii, 108sub.iii and 108 sub. Iv), Li et al does not clearly disclose a third individually controllable array of blue LEDs vary the correlated color temperature of the LED filament light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to be one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third individually controllable array of blue LEDs, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al discloses an LED filament lamp (100, Fig. 1), further comprising: an envelope (104) at least partly enclosing the LED filament, and a connector (120) for mechanically and electrically connecting the LED filament lamp to a socket (102) of a luminaire.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al in view of Carmanah Technologies Corp (WO 2009/003279A1, Carmanah).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art cited Lei et al teaches the device of claim 13 above and also teaches the use of a controller to independently control The LED arrays, “ Since electrical power (e.g. current I.sub.a and I.sub.b) applied to each of the LED arrays is independently controllable, the color of light generated by the LED-filament can be tuned by controlling the relative power (current) flowing through each LED string (Fig. 7a. description)“. Lei does not disclose an antenna functionally coupled to the controller configured to receive user input from a remote device; wherein the controller is configured to individually control a first and second array LED array. Carmanah discloses an intelligent lighting system with an antenna (16), wireless communication module (14), a processor (20), and LED driver (22). (Detailed description of the preferred embodiments, Page 9, line 27-28, page 10, lines 1-16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lei et al to have a motion sensor 4, an ambient light sensor 7, a GPS receiver 9, a solar panel 10, a battery 12, a wireless communications module 14, an antenna 16, a charge controller 18, a processor 20, a configure button 21 , an LED driver 22 and a mode switch 23 as taught by Carmanah in order to provide an intelligent controlling means to the LED arrays of Lei e al .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art cited of record Li et al (10,950,585), discloses in fig. 6 a LED filament (408) providing LED filament light, comprising: an elongated carrier (624); a plurality of blue LEDs (626a, 626b; see par. 76 and 77) mounted on a mounting side of the elongated carrier, wherein the plurality of blue LEDs includes: a first individually controllable array of blue LEDs (626b) emitting first blue LED light, a second individually controllable array of blue LEDs (626a) emitting second blue LED light, and an elongated encapsulant layer (642) covering all LEDs in the first individually controllable array and all LEDs in the second individually controllable array, said elongated encapsulant layer formed by a first luminescent material having a first concentration, C1, of luminescent particles (see par. 74), wherein the blue LEDs in the second individually controllable array are covered by a first encapsulant layer (640) formed by a second luminescent material having a second concentration, C2, of luminescent particles, wherein C2>C1 (indeed, this follows from that with phosphor 640 warm white light is generated, and with phosphor 642 cool white light is generated; par. 82).
The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from this known filament in that there is a third individually controllable array of blue LEDs emitting third blue LED light; the first encapsulant layer is formed by first encapsulant spots, and wherein the blue LEDs in the third individually controllable array are covered by second encapsulant spots; wherein: (i) the second encapsulant spots are free from a luminescent material, or (ii) the second encapsulant spots are formed by a third luminescent material having a third concentration, C3, of luminescent particles, and wherein C3wherein the second encapsulant spots are at least partly covered by the elongated encapsulant layer.
The patentable difference between the instant invention and the device of Li et al are the following: although one of ordinary skill would have recognized that in order to create an increase in color temperatures would be to increase the amount of blue light emitting LEDs, in particular by means of another or multiple arrays, with individual encapsulations, an additional phosphor placed in between the layers of 640 and 642, to increase the phosphors in 640 and decrease the phosphors in 642, such a modification would be hindsight. Furthermore, the main difference of the instant invention from Li et al is that the encapsulants are spots, and not elongate layers, which are not anticipated individually or taught in combination by the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bergman et al (2018/0328543) discloses a solid-state lamp with LED filaments (Fig. 1). Jiang et al (2017/0051878) discloses an LED light bulb and LED filament (1, 11E and 12a, b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (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.
/ANABEL TON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights