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 § 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(s) 1-7, 11-14, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smets et al. (US 2023/0296227).
Regarding claim 1, Smets discloses a light module comprising:
a printed circuit board (300, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0267) comprising an array of a plurality of light sources (310, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0263) provided on an upper surface of the printed circuit board (Fig. 2);
a plurality of discrete optics (210, Fig. 2), each discrete optic positioned over one of the plurality of light sources in a rotational orientation (Fig. 2); and
a frame (100, Fig. 2) secured to the printed circuit board and comprising a plurality of frame cells each having a cell aperture (110, Fig. 2), wherein each cell aperture receives one of the plurality of discrete optics (Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of frame cells are defined by upstanding cell walls (Fig. 3A shows upstanding walls) and wherein at least some of the upstanding cell walls comprise a base portion (bottom of 100) and a flange portion (111, Paragraph 0268) that extends outwardly from the base portion such that the flange portion of each of the at least some upstanding cell walls extends at least partially over a portion of one of the plurality of discrete optics received in one of the cell apertures (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 2, Smets discloses each discrete optic comprises silicone (Paragraph 0298).
Regarding claim 3, Smets discloses the frame comprises a polymeric or metallic material (Paragraph 0266).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Smets, Fig. 1 reproduced and annotated for examination)
Regarding claim 4, Smets discloses each discrete optic comprises a base (Base, Fig. 1 provided above) and an optical portion (optical portion, Fig. 1 provided above) having an optical geometry.
Regarding claim 5, Smets discloses only the optical portion of each discrete optic is visible within the cell aperture (Figs. 3 and 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Smets discloses a portion of the base of each discrete optic is visible within the cell aperture (Fig. 1 provided above).
Regarding claim 7, Smets discloses the optical geometry of at least some discrete optics is identical (specifically they are all the same, Fig. 1 provided).
Regarding claim 11, Smets discloses the frame comprises perimeter walls (the outer wall of 100, Fig. 2) and wherein the plurality of upstanding cell walls (inner walls of 100, Fig. 2) that extend between opposing perimeter walls to define the plurality of frame cells.
Regarding claim 12, Smets discloses the plurality of cell walls defines a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns of frame cells (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Smets discloses the cell walls comprise a vertical height (t1 and t2, Fig. 3A) and wherein an optical portion of each discrete lens extends beyond the vertical height of the cell walls (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 14, Smets discloses the plurality of cell walls are interposed between the plurality of discrete optics such that each discrete optic is separated from all adjacent discrete optics by at least one of the plurality of cell walls (Figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 16, Smets discloses the discrete optic comprises a base (base, Fig. 1 above) and an optical portion (optical portion, Fig. 1 provided above) and wherein the flange portion of each of the at least some upstanding cell walls extends at least partially over the base of the one of the plurality of discrete optics received in one of the cell apertures (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 19, Smets discloses at least some of the plurality of frame cells are defined by four of the upstanding cell walls (Figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 20, Smets discloses a light module comprising:
a printed circuit board (300, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0267) comprising an array of a plurality of light sources (310, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0263) provided on an upper surface of the printed circuit board (Fig. 2);
a plurality of discrete optics (210, Fig. 2), each discrete optic comprising silicone (Paragraph 0298) and having a base (base, Fig. 1 provided above) and an optical portion (optical portion, Fig. 1 provided), wherein each discrete optic is positioned over one of the plurality of light sources (Fig. 2); and
a frame (100, Fig. 2) secured to the printed circuit board, the frame formed of a polymeric or metallic material (Paragraph 0266) and comprising perimeter walls (the outer wall of 100, Fig. 2) and a plurality of cell walls (inner walls of 100, Fig. 2) that extend between opposing perimeter walls to define a plurality of frame cells each having a cell aperture (110, Fig. 2), wherein each cell aperture receives one of the plurality of discrete optics and wherein the plurality of cell walls are interposed between the plurality of discrete optics such that each discrete optic is separated from all adjacent discrete optics by at least one of the plurality of cell walls (Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of frame cells are defined by upstanding cell walls (Fig. 3A shows upstanding walls) and wherein at least some of the upstanding cell walls comprise a base portion (bottom of 100) and a flange portion (111, Paragraph 0268) that extends outwardly from the base portion such that the flange portion of each of the at least some upstanding cell walls extends at least partially over a portion of one of the plurality of discrete optics received in one of the cell apertures (Fig. 3A).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets et al. (US 2023/0296227 Hereinafter Smets).
Regarding claim 8, Smets Fig. 2 fails to teach the optical geometry of at least some discrete optics is different.
Smets Fig. 7 teaches a different discrete optic (210, Fig. 7) and thereby teaches the optical geometry of at least some discrete optics is different.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have replaced at least one of the discrete optics of Smets Fig. 2 with the discrete optics of Smets Fig. 7, in order to provide a desired light distribution for an alternative light distribution as needed for a given application.
Regarding claim 9, Smets Fig. 2 fails to teach the optical geometry of at least some discrete optics is asymmetrical.
Smets Fig. 7 teaches a different discrete optic (210, Fig. 7) and thereby teaches the optical geometry of at least some discrete optics is asymmetrical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have replaced at least one of the discrete optics of Smets Fig. 2 with the discrete optics of Smets Fig. 7, in order to provide a desired light distribution for an alternative light distribution as needed for a given application.
Regarding claim 10, Smets Fig. 2 fails to teach the rotational orientation of at least one of the discrete optics differs from the rotational orientation of at least one other of the discrete optics.
Smets Fig. 7 teaches a different discrete optic (210, Fig. 7) and thereby teaches the rotational orientation of at least one of the discrete optics differs from the rotational orientation of at least one other of the discrete optics.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets et al. (US 2023/0296227 Hereinafter Smets).
Regarding claim 17, Smets fails to teach the flange portion comprises an upper wall that angles downwardly towards the frame cell at an angle relative to nadir.
Wang teaches the flange portion comprises an upper wall (312, Fig. 4) that angles downwardly towards the frame cell (the area where the light source 23 is located, Fig. 4) at an angle relative to nadir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included the upper wall of Smets being downwardly oriented towards the frame cell as taught by Wang, in order to provide light guided in a specific direction as needed for a given application.
Regarding claim 18, Smets fails to teach the angle is greater than 40° and less than 90°.
Wang teaches the angle is greater than 40° and less than 90° (Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that Smets fails to teach wherein the plurality of frame cells are defined by upstanding cell walls (Fig. 3A shows upstanding walls) and wherein at least some of the upstanding cell walls comprise a base portion (bottom of 100) and a flange portion (111, Paragraph 0268) that extends outwardly from the base portion such that the flange portion of each of the at least some upstanding cell walls extends at least partially over a portion of one of the plurality of discrete optics received in one of the cell apertures (Fig. 3A). While this argument has been fully considered it is not persuasive. The Examiner points out that the rejection has been provided an explained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 (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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights