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 4-5 and 7-10 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.
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, Claims 4-5 and 7 respectively recite the broad recitations “CCT of no greater than 2700K”, “emitted luminous flux no less than 80%,” and “a beam angle of less than 50 degrees”, and the claims also respectively recite “or no greater than 2400K, or no greater than 2220K”; “or no less than 85% of said first luminous flux, or no less than 90% of said first luminous flux, or no less than 95% of said first luminous flux”; and “or less than 40 degrees, or less than 30 degrees, or less than 20 degrees” which are 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.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boomgaarden et al. (U.S. Patent 9,352,428 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Boomgaarden discloses a color correcting optical component (CCOC) for reducing correlated color temperature (CCT) of a light source emitting a first light [note Figures 1-6], the CCOC including:
A light transmitting component (160), the light transmitting component being discrete from the light source (110);
A connector [e.g., (128)] operatively attached to the light transmitting component for connecting the light transmitting component to the light source such that at least a first portion of the first light passes through the light transmitting component [e.g., Figure 1D];
A plurality of quantum dots (QDs) disposed in the light transmitting component, the QDs configured to downconvert at least a second portion of the first portion of the first light to a second light, wherein the light transmitting component emits emitted light including a combination of at least the second light and a third portion of the first light [note Figures 1-6 and Column 10, Lines 21-44, as broadly interpreted the QDs in (160) would downconvert various portions of the light (e.g., second and third portions – UV/blue to yellow/white color) according to the applications incorporated by reference].
With regards to Claim 2, Boomgaarden discloses the first light includes at least a blue or violet component and the QDs downconverts a portion of the blue or violet component to red light [note 13/234,604: Paragraphs 64-70].
With regards to Claim 3, Boomgaarden discloses the first light includes a blue component and the QDs downconverts a portion of the blue component to red light [note 13/234,604: Paragraphs 64-70].
With regards to Claim 4, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgaarden discloses the first light having a CCT of at least 3000K and the emitted light has a CCT of no greater than 2700K, or no greater than 2400K, or no greater than 2220K [note Figures 1-6 and Column 10, Lines 21-44].
With regards to Claim 5, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgarden discloses the first light has a first luminous flux and the emitted light has an emitted luminous flux no less than 80% of the first luminous flux, or no less than 85% of the first luminous flux, or no less than 90% of the first luminous flux, or no less than 95% of the first luminous flux [note Figures 1-6 and Column 10, Lines 21-44].
With regards to Claim 6, Boomgaarden discloses the CCOC does not filter light [note Figures 1-6: (160) and Column 10, Lines 21-44].
With regards to Claim 7, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgaarden discloses the emitted light diverges at a beam angle of less than 50 degrees, or less than 40 degrees, or less than 30 degrees or less than 20 degrees [note Figures 1-6: (160) – emitted light relative thereto would diverge at these particular angles].
With regards to Claim 8, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgaarden discloses total internal reflection (TIR) optics [e.g., Column 9, Lines 3-36].
With regards to Claim 9, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgaarden discloses the TIR optics being integrated with the light transmitting component [note Figures 1-6].
With regards to Claim 10, as best understood given the 112 rejection above, Boomgaarden discloses the TIR optics are discrete from the light transmitting component [note Figures 1-6].
With regards to Claim 11, Boomgaarden discloses the light source (110) having a light emitting surface, and wherein the connector (128) [optically] connects the CCOC (160) to the lighting emitting surface [note Figures 1-6].
With regards to Claim 12, Boomgaarden discloses the connector (128) releasable connects the CCOC to the light emitting surface [note Figures 1-6].
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boomgaarden et al. (U.S. Patent 9,352,428 B2) as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Shum et al. (U.S. Patent 9,488,324 B2).
With regard to Claims 13-15, Boomgaarden discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the connector being a magnetic connector (re: Claim 13), wherein the connector includes a magnet (re: Claim 14) or a ferrous metal (re: Claim 15).
Shum tesaches a light transmitting component [e.g., (104) and/or (106)], whereby a connector [e.g., (1021) and/or (1022)], including a magnetic connector, magnet, and ferrous metal [Column 8, Lines 6-51], connects the light transmitting component with a light source [note Figure 1B].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connector of Boomgaarden to have incorporated the magnetic connector, including a magnet or ferrous material, as taught in principle by Shum, so as to provide a simple attachment means for various optical components (e.g., lenses, wavelength converters) as desired.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boomgaarden et al. (U.S. Patent 9,352,428 B2).
With regard to Claims 16-17, Boomgaarden discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the light transmitting component including a glass or plastic substrate and the QDs are suspended in a polymeric matrix applied to the substrate or the QDs being non-cadmium QDs.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the light transmitting component as a glass or plastic substrate with non-cadmium QDs suspended in a polymeric matrix, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, it is well-established that glass and plastic substrates are suitable materials for light transmitting components, whereby known non-cadmium QDs [see Paragraph 11 of Applicant’s Specification] suspended in a polymeric matrix (i.e., plastic) is also considered obvious with respect to readily available materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
January 3, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875