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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 9/23/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2 and 6-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a light source comprising one or more light emitting devices, LEDs,” in line 2 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the abbreviation “LEDs” is being used as an abbreviation for the claimed “light emitting devices” generally, or if “LEDs” is being used in its traditional way to refer specifically to light emitting diodes, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Alternatively, this limitation could be interpreted as presenting a broad range or limitation together with a narrower range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation within the same claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a light source comprising one or more light emitting devices” in line 2 of the claim, and the claim also recites “LEDs” in line 2 of the claim which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A review of the Specification as filed shows that the light source is described as “The light source may for example comprise one or more light emitting devices, such as one or more LEDs” and “Typically the LEDs are arranged as bright light emitting pixels in a two-dimensional array” (see pg. 5, lines 10-14 of the Specification as filed), which suggests that the acronym “LEDs” is intended to refer to light emitting diodes specifically. Therefore, it is unclear if Claim 1 requires the light source to comprise one or more light emitting devices broadly, or if Claim 1 requires the light source to comprise one or more light emitting devices which are specifically light emitting diodes.
If Applicant intends to claim the broader limitation, the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a light source comprising one or more light emitting devicesdiodes (LEDs),-- for better understanding.
Regarding claim 2, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the wall structure has a specular reflectance in a range from 14% to 86%” in lines 1-2 of the claim, and the claim also recites “preferably 20% to 80%” and “or even more preferably 40% to 60%” in lines 2-3 of the claim which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In this case, the use of the indefinite terms “preferably” and “even more preferably” in lines 2-3 of the claim render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if Claim 2 requires the specular reflectance of the wall structure to be between 14-86% and the narrower ranges of 20-80% and 40-60% are optional features of the invention, or if the specular reflectance is required to be between 20-80% or between 40-60%. For the purpose of examination, claim has been treated as requiring only the broader range of 14%-86%.
Claims 6-15 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 6-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “A lighting device comprising a light source comprising one or more light emitting devices, LEDs, and a diffusive light emitting area, the light source being configured to transmit light through the light emitting area towards a light exit window of the lighting device along an optical axis, the light emitting area having a periphery; and a transflective wall structure for reducing a glare of the light emitting area when viewed through the wall structure, the wall structure surrounding the light emitting area and extending between the light emitting area and the light exit window in a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis, wherein the light emitted from the light emitting area comprises a direct portion propagating directly between the light emitting area and the light exit window, and a divergent portion incident on an inwardly facing surface of the wall structure, and wherein the transflective wall structure is transparent and specularly reflective such that the divergent portion of the light is in part transmitted through the wall structure and in part guided towards the light exit window by being specularly reflected by the wall structure, wherein the wall structure comprises first and second wall portions arranged on opposite sides of, and at a same distance from, the optical axis, wherein the light source is configured to emit the light in a luminous intensity distribution having at least a first plane of symmetry, and wherein the first and second sidewall portions are flat sidewall portions substantially parallel to the first plane of symmetry and arranged on opposite sides of, and at a same distance from ,the first plane of symmetry, and wherein the wall structure comprises third and fourth sidewall portions connecting the first and second sidewall portions and arranged on opposite sides of the optical axis” (emphasis added).
Although lighting devices are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 6-15 depend on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vissenberg et al. (US 2023/0160556), Itahana et al. (US 2021/0199267), Nakamura (US 2015/0247621), and Nakamura (US 2013/0114254) each disclose a lighting device comprising a light source comprising one or more light emitting devices which transmit light through a diffusive light emitting area and a transflective wall structure for reducing glare in the light emitting area when viewed through the wall structure, the wall structure comprising at least one sidewall portion arranged at a distance from the optical axis of the light source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights