DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 8/4/2026 has been entered.
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) 14-18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 2022/0170606 A1) in view of Watanabe (US 2017/0267163 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Potter discloses a lighting module, comprising:
a housing;
a plurality of flood light elements mounted in the housing, each flood light element of the plurality of flood light elements comprising:
at least one flood light source (140a); and
a plurality of light channel elements mounted in the housing, each light channel element of the plurality of light channel elements comprising:
at least one channel light source (140b);
an emitting surface positioned at an opening in the housing (emitting 145b); and
a light transmissive material (150) configured to transmit light from the at least one channel light source to the emitting surface using total internal reflection. (Figure 3C; see at least [0030] onward)
PNG
media_image1.png
516
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Potter fails to disclose that the emitting surface being textured to provide an even light output.
Watanabe teaches a light channel wherein the emitting surface is textured to provide an even light output. (Figure 3A; see at least [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the textured surface of Watanabe onto the emission surface of Potter in order to improve the evenness of the resulting light distribution.
Moreover, the Examiner further takes notice that textured surfaces are notoriously old and well-known in the art for improving light distribution.
In regard to claim 15, Potter fails to disclose that the light transmissive material comprises a transparent material comprises at least one of acrylic, silicone, clear plastic, polycarbonate, glass, or fiber optic material.
However, this is a broad and nearly an exhaustive list of known materials for optics. The Examiner cannot think of anything other material that is not at least one of acrylic, silicone, clear plastic, polycarbonate, glass, or fiber optic material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use at least one of these materials to make the light pipe as these are the most common materials for making optics.
In regard to claim 16, Potter discloses each flood light element further comprises a reflective enclosure (110) positioned to direct light emitted from the at least one flood light source.
In regard to claim 17, Potter fails to disclose the plurality of light channel elements are configured to maintain illumination during periods when the plurality of flood light elements are turned off or operating at reduced intensity. However, controllers that individually control LED light sources independently are notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a controller to independently control the light sources in order to provide for a multitude of lighting effects.
In regard to claim 18, Potter discloses each flood light element further comprises a lens or optical element (120). (See Figure 2)
In regard to claim 20, Potter discloses the opening in the housing corresponds to dimensions of the emitting surface of each light channel element. (This is broad. How does it “correspond”?)
In regard to claim 21, Potter discloses the at least one flood light source and the at least one channel light source each comprise one or more LEDs.
PNG
media_image3.png
339
411
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant is arguing that Potter fails to teach a plurality of light channels. The Examiner disagrees. The applicant has failed to limit the scope of what is considered a light channel. See Figure 3B of Potter. The light is going down a path and under BRI that is a channel. The applicant should amend to fully clarify the scope of what a “channel” is considered.
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 CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, James (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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
