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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show wherein distances between the LED modules on the light source plate are non-uniform as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 distances between the LED modules on the light source plate are non-uniform as claimed in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the spectral chromaticity points" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the base color channels” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 3, 6-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190017657, hereafter referred to as ‘Kim’ in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0114367, hereafter referred to as ‘Li.’ Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a lighting apparatus (300, 300’, figures 1-11) comprising: a bulb shell 280; a bulb cap 210 enclosing a driver (230, 231, fig. 3) configured to convert an external power source into a driving current (para. #’s 29-30 and 42-48); a light source structure (200, 200’) disposed within the bulb shell (figures 1 and 11), the light source structure comprising a plurality of elongated light source plates (100A-100D) arranged side by side to form a polygonal tubular shape (see polygonal tubular prism shapes in figures 1, 4 and 10 and described in para. #’s 31-32, 36-37 and 74), each of the light source plates extending in a longitudinal direction (figures 1-4 and 10-11); and a plurality of color LED modules (50, 50’) disposed on each light source plate (100A-100D) and arranged along the longitudinal direction (figures 1-4 and 10-11), wherein, at a given longitudinal position, at least two LED modules respectively located on two adjacent light source plates have different colors (for example, see para. # 50, LED modules on board 100A emit white light and Led modules on board 100B and 100C emit red and green light, also see para. #’s 57, 77, 90 and claims 1, 10 and 20).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach that the light source structure comprising a plurality of elongated light source plates arranged side by side to form a folded polygonal tubular shape.
Li further teaches a lighting apparatus (figure 3) comprising a symmetrically multiple sided or polygonal shaped lighting structure (figures 1- 3) comprising a bulb shell 7; the light source structure is disposed within the bulb shell (figures 1-3), the light source structure comprising a plurality of elongated light source plates 3 arranged side by side by folding or bending the plural light source plates to form a polygonal tubular shape (see claims 1-2 and figures 1-3). Each of the light source plates 3 extending in a longitudinal direction (figures 1-3). Although the recitation ‘to form a folded polygonal tubular shape’ is a product be process claim and generally given no patentable weight, there is no structure in the elongated light source plates of the Kim reference capable of forming a folded polygonal tubular shape. Instead, Kim uses separate connects at the edges of the plates to connect the plates together.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting device of Kim so that the plurality of elongated light source plates arranged side by side to form a folded polygonal tubular shape as taught by Li in order to alternatively make the light structure’s light source plates as a one piece design rather than relying on providing a plurality of connectors to connect the light plates together.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1, Kim further teaches that the color LED modules (50, 50’) on each light source plate (100, 100’) are arranged in a linear array along the longitudinal direction of the light source plate (figures 1-4 and 10-11).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein there are more than three light source plates (100A-100D) forming the light source structure (figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 6. However, Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the light source structure comprises between five and seven light source plates.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that the light source structure comprises between five and seven light source plates LEDs since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different polygon shapes for efficiently supporting and transmitting light.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1, Kim further teaches a base bracket (218, 120, 220a, 220b) for fixing the plurality of elongated light source plates (100A-100D, figures 1, 3-4) and 10-11).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 8, Kim further teaches wherein the base bracket includes electrodes (80a, 265) configured to transmit the driving current to the LED modules on the elongated light source plates (para. #’s 29-30 and 42-48).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches comprising a top cover 130 positioned above the plurality of elongated light source plates (100A-100D, see figures 4 and 10-11). However, Kim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the top cover includes one or more LED modules configured to provide supplementary lighting.
Li further teaches a lighting apparatus (figure 3) comprising a symmetrically multiple sided or polygonal shaped lighting structure (figure 3) comprising a top cover (figure 3, top cover section is the pointed triangular shaped section) positioned above the plurality of elongated light source plates 4, see figure 3), wherein the top cover includes one or more LED modules 3 configured to provide supplementary lighting.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that the polygonal lighting structure comprises a top cover which includes one or more LED modules configured to provide supplementary lighting as taught by Li in order to provide 360 degrees of omnidirectional illumination.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 17. Li further teaches wherein the top cover (fig. 3) is raised toward a central region from a surrounding perimeter (fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120243216, hereafter referred to as ‘Lai’ Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches that the lighting apparatus has an inner diameter of the bulb shell 280 spaced away from a maximum inscribed circle diameter of the polygonal tubular light source structure (see space 285 in figures 1-2).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach the lighting apparatus has an inner diameter of the bulb shell is at least 1.5 times greater than a maximum inscribed circle diameter of the folded polygonal
tubular light source structure.
Lai further teaches at col. 1, lines 14-37 that a lighting apparatus has a bulb shell or cover generally spaced a distance from the elongated tubular LED light source. Lai further teaches that too short of a distance, hots spots may be created and the appearance and luminous uniformity will suffer and too far away of a distance and the intensity, appearance and luminous uniformity will suffer (col. 1, lines 14-37).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting device of Kim so that an inner diameter of the bulb shell is at least 1.5 times greater than a maximum inscribed circle diameter of the folded polygonal tubular light source structure since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of getting the optimum distance through routine experimentation as taught Lai, knowing that too short of a distance, hots spots may be created and the appearance and luminous uniformity will suffer and too far away of a distance and the intensity, appearance and luminous uniformity will suffer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,866,394, hereafter referred to as ‘Hutchins’. Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 3. However, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein distances between the LED modules on the light source plate are non-uniform.
Hutchins teaches an elongated light source plate 11 (figures 5-6) wherein distances between the LED modules (23A-23D, 24A-24D, 25A-25D, 26A-26D) on the light source plate are non-uniform (see col. 6, lines 3-17, non-uniform spacing is used by Hutchins in order to provide different intensities of light from the elongated light source plate.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that distances between the LED modules on the light source plate are non-uniform as taught by Hutchins in order to provide different intensities of light from the elongated light source plate of Kim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220290820, hereafter referred to as ‘Van Bommel’. Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 3. However, Kim fails to explicitly teach the number of LED dies differs among the different color LED modules mounted on the light source plates.
Van Bommel teaches a lighting apparatus which includes light structure 13 wherein the number of LED dies differs (see para #’s 44-46, Led module 21a has two dies which are red and blue and Led module 21b has only one die which is red 27a, green 27b or blue 27c) among the different color LED modules (21a, 21b) mounted on the light source plate 22.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that the number of LED dies differs among the different color LED modules mounted on the light source plates as taught by Van Bommel in order to efficiently control the color output, wavelength range, efficiency and color temperature of Kim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040037079, hereafter referred to as ‘Luk’
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. However, Kim doesn’t explicitly teach that each elongated light source plate includes one or more integrated multi-color LED modules.
Luk discloses a lighting apparatus 10 comprising elongated light structure (figures 1-4 and 7-9) and an elongated light source plate (24, 24A-24D). The elongated light source plate includes one or more integrated multi-color LED modules (see plural integrated multi color Leds 36a, 36b, 36c, which are RGBY SMD leds, see para. #’s 6, 63-66 and 68-69).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that that each elongated light source plate includes one or more integrated multi-color LED modules as taught by Luk in order to more efficiently control the color output, wavelength range, color temperature and color output of Kim while optimally manufacturing the lighting apparatus based on cost, size, beam spread, efficiency etc.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Li further in view of Luk teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 10. Luk further teaches wherein the integrated multi-color LED modules (36a-36c) have SMD package footprints (para. #’s 63-66 and 68-69). However, Li fails to explicitly teach the SMD package footprint is selected from 1616, 2835, 3030, 3838, 4830, 5050, or similar sized packages, and each package comprises either a single chamber or multiple chambers.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to substitute integrated multi-color LED modules having SMD package footprints selected from 1616, 2835, 3030, 3838, 4830, 5050, or similar sized packages, and each package comprises either a single chamber or multiple chambers for the integrated multi-color LED module with a SMD package foot print of Li since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using different types of well known integrated multi-color LED modules having SMD packages through routine experimentation based on color output and efficiency, wavelength range, cost, size, beam spread, efficiency etc. for optimally making the lighting apparatus of Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Li further in view of Luk teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 10. Luk further teaches wherein the integrated multi-color LED modules emit blue, green, red and yellow light (see para. 63-69).
However, Luk doesn’t explicitly teach the specific wavelength ranges of blue (B): 420-490 nm, green (G): 500-550 nm, red (R): 600-660 nm, and yellow (Y): 530-600 nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to make the RGBY Led of Luk so that it conforms with the specific wavelength ranges of blue (B): 420-490 nm, green (G): 500-550 nm, red (R): 600-660 nm, and yellow (Y): 530-600 nm since such a modification would have merely been an obvious engineering design choice yielding the predictable results of using specific wavelength ranges to make the integrated multi-color RGBY LED modules of Luk based on factors such as color output and efficiency, wavelength range, cost etc. for optimally making the lighting apparatus of Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Li further in view of Luk teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 10. Luk further teaches wherein the green, red, and yellow emissions are generated by direct-emitting LED dies (see para. #’s 63-69).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Li in view of Luk teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 10. Kim and Luk further disclose a plurality of spectral chromaticity points of base color channels define a range of achievable mixed light chromaticities (based on CIE 1931 coordinates for chromaticity, inherently, the mixed red, green and blue light of Kim OR the mixed red, green, blue and yellow light of Luk would include a plurality of spectral chromaticity points of base color channels define a range of achievable mixed light chromaticities.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Li in view of Luk teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 10. Kim further teaches a target white (target white light, see para. #’s 33-34, 44-46, 57 and 77) or colored light spectrum is generated by combining light from three (red, green, blue) channels of light according to predetermined mixing ratios (via controller 230).
Luk further teaches a target white or colored light spectrum (see combined light spectrum from mixing red, green, blue and yellow via controller 57 in para. #’s 31-32 and 63-69) is generated by combining light from four (red, green, blue, yellow) color channels of the integrated multi-color LED modules according to predetermined mixing ratios (para. #’s 31-32 and 68-69).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of Luk.
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein each elongated light source plate (100A-100D) includes a plurality of discrete single-color LED modules (para. #’s 63-69) arranged in groups to provide multi-color illumination.
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach the groups of discrete LED modules including at least one of RGB, RGGB RBBG, or RGBY combinations.
Luk teaches a lighting apparatus 10 comprising elongated light structure (figures 1-4 and 7-9) and an elongated light source plate (24, 24A-24D). The elongated light source plate includes a plurality of discrete single-color LED modules (RGBY LEDS 36a-36c, para. #’s 63-69) arranged in groups to provide multi-color illumination one or more integrated multi-color LED modules (see plural integrated multi color LEDs 36a, 36b, 36c, which are RGBY SMD LEDs, see para. #’s 6, 63-69).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that the groups of discrete LED modules including at least one RGBY combinations as taught by Luk in order to efficiently produce and control the color output and efficiency, wavelength range, and color temperature of Kim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0058080, hereafter referred to as ‘Ge’. Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. However, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein an interior of the bulb shell is filled with a thermally conductive gas comprising helium.
Ge teaches a lighting apparatus comprising elongated light structure 13 inside of a bulb shell 1. An interior of the bulb shell is filled with a thermally conductive gas comprising helium (see para. # 27, helium is used because of it’s low coefficient of viscosity and a high coefficient of thermal conductivity and thus more efficiently taking away the heat from the LEDs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0155059, hereafter referred to as ‘Hoelen’. Kim in view of Li teaches the lighting apparatus of claim 1. However, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the bulb shell comprises a color diffusion layer configured to scatter light of different wavelengths to different extents.
Hoelen teaches a lighting apparatus 10 comprising a bulb shell 30 comprises a color diffusion layer (para. # 35) configured to scatter light of different wavelengths to different extents (para. # 35)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the lighting apparatus of Kim so that the bulb shell comprises a color diffusion layer configured to scatter light of different wavelengths to different extents as taught by Hoelen in order to provide more efficient blending and mixing of the plurality of different colored lights emitted from the LED modules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang discloses a lighting device 1 comprising a polygonal shaped lighting structure 2 which are similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. 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.
/THOMAS M SEMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875