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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of light solid state light generating elements” is suggested to read as “the plurality of . Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 1-7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (U.S. Patent 11,732,869 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Nishimura discloses a light fixture [Figures 1-28] including:
A plurality of side-by-side arrays (10, 60) each containing a set of solid state light generating elements (10), wherein each array is independently powered [e.g., (61) – Column 5, Lines 51-55];
A plurality of lenses (20), the lenses each covering one or more solid state light generating elements and being fixed to a substrate (60), wherein first lenses of a first array having a first height (71), second lenses of a second array having a second height [(72) or (73)] greater than the first height, whereby different beam angles and light patterns are achievable by activating different arrays, individually or in various combinations [(61) – Column 5, Lines 51-55].
With regards to Claim 2, Nishimura discloses third lenses (73) of a third array having a third height which is greater than both the first and second heights [note Figure 14].
With regards to Claim 3, Nishimura discloses each array is independently controlled [(61) – Column 5, Lines 51-55].
With regards to Claim 4, Nishimura discloses each array is affixed to a strip [e.g., Figure 1: (60)].
With regards to Claim 5, Nishimura discloses the arrays are affixed to a common printed circuit board (60).
With regards to Claim 6, Nishimura discloses the first and second arrays are parallel [e.g., Figure 1: (60)].
With regards to Claim 7, Nishimura discloses the first and second arrays are each arranged linearly [e.g., Figure 1: (60)].
With regards to Claim 9, Nishimura discloses the first and second arrays are each arranged linearly [e.g., Figure 1: (60)].
With regards to Claim 13, Nishimura discloses the arrays including alternating arrays including the first lenses (71) and the second lenses [e.g., (72) or (73)] [note Figures 10-15].
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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (U.S. Patent 11,732,869 B2) as applied to Claims 6 and 1, respectively above, and further in view of Pi et al. (CN 113294715 A1).
With regard to Claims 8 and 10, Nishimura discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the first and second arrays are each arranged arcuately.
Pi teaches a light fixture incorporating first and second arrays (21, 22) that are each arranged arcuately.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged each of the first and second arrays of Nishimura to be arcuate, as taught in principle by Pi, in order to provide a desire illumination pattern or aesthetic appeal. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art [In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70], whereby some prefer arcuate over linear light fixtures.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (U.S. Patent 11,732,869 B2) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Patent 11,686,450 B2).
With regard to Claims 11-12, Nishimura discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach the first array including a plurality of solid state light generating elements associated with one of the first lenses, wherein the plurality of (light) solid state light generating elements is covered by the associated first lens.
Hasegawa teaches a lighting fixture incorporating a first array including a plurality of solid state light generating elements (7) associated with one of a first lenses (6), wherein the plurality of solid state light generating elements is covered by the associated first lens [note Figures 1-2].
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 first array of Nishimura such that the plurality of solid state light generating elements is associated with one of the first lenses, wherein the plurality of solid state light generating elements is covered by the associated first lens, as taught in principle by Hasegawa. Such an obvious modification would promote greater control/efficacy of the illumination as desired with respect to the commonly known multi-colored/die light emitting diode packages.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but is not considered exhaustive: U.S. Patent 10,683,987 B2 to Kishikawa et al. that teaches LED arrays with corresponding lenses having different heights [note Figures 1-21].
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.
December 27, 2025
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875