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 9/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the light exit window abutting the ledge of Claim 5 lines 1-2, the sky section contained in a first housing of Claim 6 line 2, the sun sections contained in a second housing of Claim 7 line 1, the second housings secured to the first housing of Claim 8 line 2, the first and second solid-state light sources mounted in a common plane and on one single carrier of Claim 9 lines 1-3, and the shade sections of Claim 10 lines 2-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: [39] as shown in Fig. 6d. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6 line 29 of the Specification as originally filed 9/24/2025 “he skylight luminaire 1” should be --the skylight luminaire 1--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2 “into said edge” should be --into said edge of said lightguide--.
Claim 4 line 2 “an second portion” should be --a second portion--
Claim 12 lines 3-4 “of a ceiling system” should be --of the ceiling system--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “a generally flat light emitting surface configured to emit light resembling a sky visible through a window”. The term “resembling” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, it is unclear as to how similar to a sky visible through a window the light emitted by the generally flat light emitting surface need be, particularly whether a limitation is placed on features such as the light intensity, light color, visible pattern (e.g., cloud pattern, sunset or sunrise light pattern), whether such window is a transparent, translucent, frosted, or colored window, or whether the light emitted by the generally flat light emitting surface need only have one feature in common with a sky visible through any type of window, and it is unclear as to what light is included in the scope of the claim (e.g., does a generally flat light emitting surface emitting a white light resemble a sky visible through a window when the sky is cloudy and therefore read on the claimed limitation? Does the sky need include a blue component? Etc.). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the sky section has a generally flat light emitting surface configured to emit light having a blue color included in the range of blue colors of the sky on a cloudless day emitted through a clear window. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the characteristic(s) of the light emitted by the generally flat light emitting surface, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With further regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 lines 4-5 recite the limitation “each sun section configured to emit light resembling sunlight reflected from a surface of said rim”. The term “resembling” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, it is unclear as to how similar to sunlight reflected from a surface of the rim the light emitted by each sun section need be, particularly whether a limitation is placed on features such as the light intensity, light color, sunset or sunrise light pattern, or whether a limitation is placed on features of the rim for reflecting (e.g., a shape of the reflector, a directionality of the reflection, whether the rim reflecting the light reflects as a diffusive or specular reflector, etc.) or whether the light emitted by each sun section need only have one feature in common with sunlight reflected by any rim, and it is unclear as to what light is included in the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the sun section is configured to emit light appearing as a color and intensity of that observed of the sun during daylight and having a directionality away from the rim. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the characteristic(s) of the light emitted by the sun section, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 5, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the light exit window, and any transparent panel mounted thereon, abuts said ledge”. The use of the phrasing “any transparent panel mounted thereon” makes this limitation indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the claim requires one or more transparent panel(s) mounted on the light exit window, whether the claim intends to refer to one or more transparent panel(s) mounted thereon recited in a claim from which it depends (and if so, antecedent basis is not provided for such panel(s)), or whether the claim intends that the light exit window must abut the ledge of the intermediate portion and an optional limitation such that one or more transparent panel may be mounted on the light exit window and if such one or more transparent panel is mounted on the light exit window, then the transparent panel(s) must also abut said ledge. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation based on the required structure of the claim such that the light exit window must abut the ledge of the intermediate portion. The applicant is encouraged to provide proper antecedent basis for all claim limitations and to clarify in the claim language the structure of the invention required by the scope of the claim, particularly whether one or more transparent panels are required by the claim, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 8, line 2 recites the phrasing “each second housing”. Claim 8 depends from Claim 6, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrasing “each second housing” in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether Claim 8 intends to depend from Claim 7, or whether Claim 8 intends a scope pertaining to the second housing differing from that of Claim 7, and if so, what such scope includes. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that Claim 8 depends from Claim 7. The applicant is encouraged to provide sufficient antecedent basis for all claim limitations and to clarify the scope of Claim 8, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
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 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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mapel et al. (US 2014/117877).
With regards to Claim 12, Mapel et al. discloses a ceiling system including a grid of bars for suspending ceiling panels (see paragraphs 70 and 72 and Figures 2 and 3A) and comprising a skylight according to claim 1 and/or a skylight luminaire [3000] mounted in one or more openings of a ceiling system (see paragraphs 72 and 92; the skylight luminaire [3000] is substantially mounted in one or more openings of the ceiling system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 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:
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest each sun section includes a diffusor arranged on an inwards facing side, each lightguide is arranged with one edge located upstream the exit window of the sky section, a first portion of the diffusor, which first portion is located downstream the exit window of the sky section, is arranged at a distance from the lightguide, so as to be located inside an outer edge of the exit window of the sky section, as best understood by the examiner and in combination with the remaining limitations of the Claim.
Prior Art Referral
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Snell (US 2023/0408066), which discloses at least a luminaire resembling a skylight, a luminaire including a first LED light source directly emitting light to a generally planar diffuser, a second LED light source emitting light into an edge of a light guide, the luminaire mounted in a ceiling, Keller (US 2018/025374), which disclose at least a luminaire including a sky section including a generally planar light emitting section emitting light resembling a sky, one or more sun sections forming a rim of the sky section and emitting light resembling a sun, a variety of arrangements of light emitting elements, diffusers, and light guides for providing each the sky section and the sun sections, and Takeshita (US 10,440,792), which discloses at least a skylight luminaire for mounting in a ceiling, the luminaire including a first light source emitting light to a generally planar diffuser, a second light source emitting light into an edge of a light guide forming a rim of the generally planar diffuser, a reflective coating on an outwardly facing surface of the light guide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
