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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/6/25 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Van Winkle [US 2020/0191344].
As to claim 1, Van Winkle discloses a lighting system [110, figure 11] comprising: a housing [130] having an axis and configured for mounting in a ceiling [see figure 11, see also figure 1-2e]; a first light source [132] in said housing configured for emitting first light axially relative to said housing [horizontally in figure 11]; and a second light source in said housing configured for emitting second light radially relative to said housing such that, when said housing is mounted in said ceiling, an area of said ceiling around the perimeter of said housing is illuminated [124 and 215, see figures 11, 1-2e].
As to claim 2, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 1, wherein said control circuitry independently controls said first light source and said second light source [see figures 1-2e].
As to claim 3, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 2, wherein said control circuitry is configured to control said first light source to emit said first light with varying EML [see paragraph 145].
As to claim 4, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 3, wherein said first light has at least a high-EML second light and a low-EML second light [see paragraph 145].
As to claim 8, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 4, wherein said high-EML first light has a CCT of 4000 to 6000K, and said a low-EML first light has a CCT of 1500 to 2700K [see paragraph 145].
As to claim 9, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 4, wherein said control circuitry is configured to control said first light source such that said first light transitions between said high-EML first light and said low-EML first light within a 24 hour period [see paragraph 145].
As to claim 10, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 2, wherein said control circuitry is configured to control said second light source to emit said second light to illuminate said area corresponding to at least one of (a) said first light, (b) the circadian rhythm of a user, or (c) time of day in location of said system [see paragraph, referring to use as a nightlight].
As to claim 13, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 12, wherein said sky color has a high-EML second light in the morning, and a low-EML second light in the evening [see paragraph 145].
As to claim 14, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 13, wherein said high-EML second light has a relatively high light intensity, and said low-EML second light has a relatively low light intensity [see paragraph 254, discussing dimmers].
As to claim 15, Van Winkle discloses the lighting system of claim 11, wherein said second light is synchronized to said first light such that said second light has an EML that varies with the EML of the first light [see paragraph 151, discussing different lighting settings].
As to claim 20, Van Winkle discloses at least one optical element optically coupled to said second light source such that said second light is diffused light [126, figure 11].
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Winkle.
As to claim 18, Van Winkle fails to explicitly disclose wherein said area has a consistent illumination portion wherein the ratio of average lux to min lux in said consistent illumination portion is no greater than 3, wherein said consistent illumination portion has a diameter of at least 2 ft. Such a configuration would have flown naturally to one having ordinary skill in the art, as the LEDs are provided to illuminate evenly [see figure 11, note that the LEDs are evenly spaced and feature an optic further for providing even illumination]. Picking specific dimensions of the constant illumination portion would have also have been within easy configuration for one having ordinary skill in the art since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the dimensions could be determined on the size of lighting device desired by a user.
As to claim 19, Van Winkle fails to explicitly disclose wherein said housing protrudes no more than 15 mm from said ceiling when installed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the dimensions as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the dimensions could be determined on the size of lighting device desired by a user.
Claims 11-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Winkle in view of Pickard [US 2021/0215317].
As to claim 11, Van Winkle fails to explicitly disclose wherein said second light illuminates said area in a sky color. Pickard teaches such illumination was well known in the art [see paragraph 69, using cyan or yellow or a combination thereof to emulate the sky]. It would have been obvious to implement the sky colorings as taught by Pickard with the lighting unit with Van Winkle, as such color configurations are well known within the art and produce light as may be desired by a user [see paragraph 266 of Van Winkle].
As to claim 12, Van Winkle fails to explicitly disclose wherein said second light progresses from pale yellow to pale blue to red/orange and eventually turning off within a 24 hour period. Pickard teaches emulating the time of day such that these colors are reproduced is well known [see paragraph 5]. It would have been obvious to implement the sky colorings as taught by Pickard with the lighting unit with Van Winkle, as such color configurations are well known within the art and produce light as may be desired by a user [see paragraph 266 of Van Winkle].
As to claim 16 Van Winkle fails to explicitly disclose wherein said second light has a low EML second light which is lower than the low EML first light, Pickard teaches the use of such light sources is well known [see Pickard, abstract, paragraph 69]. It would have been obvious to implement the colored lights as claimed, in order to produce the light colors as desired by a user [see paragraph 266 of Van Winkle].
As to claim 17, Van Winkle fairly teaches wherein said second light is off when said first light is in a low EML mode [see figures 1-2e, note that these lights could be on at any time of day with whichever specific color is illuminated as desired, see rejection of claims 16 and 11, above].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5 and its dependent claims, the claims recite the details wherein said high-EML first light has a high-EML spectrum power distribution (SPD) having a high-EML overall power from 350 nm – 800 nm, and a high-EML blue power from 440 nm - 510 nm, wherein said high-EML blue power is at least 20% of said high-EML overall power, and wherein said low-EML first light has a low -EML spectrum power distribution (SPD) having a low-EML overall power from 350 nm - 800 nm, and a low-EML blue power from 440 nm - 510 nm, wherein said low-EML blue power is no greater than 2% of said low-EML overall power. No cited art cures such elements and limitations in combination with other claimed elements and limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harrison [see PTO-892 for references], Tham, Vissenberg, Robinson, Chemel, Parker, Piepgras all teach similar lighting units or methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875