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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 16 January 2026 has been entered. Claim 18 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-18 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 12, and 18 being independent.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler et al. (US 12,460,793 B2, herein referred to as: Kessler), in view of Benner, Jr. (US 6,580,560 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Kessler teaches or suggests a luminaire (Figs. 1-10), comprising: a light source (204) configured to generate an emitted light beam (206); and a diffusion wheel subsystem (Fig. 2), comprising: a first diffusion wheel (104) that comprises at least one diffusion region (122, 124) that provides a range of diffusion to a light beam passing therethrough (“...the frost component 118 and the frost component 124 may each provide a light frost lighting effect (“light frost”), and the frost component 116 and the frost component 122 may each provide a heavy frost lighting effect (“heavy frost”)...”), wherein an area of the first diffusion wheel that provides a lowest degree of diffusion (124) is located at an edge of the first diffusion wheel (as shown in Fig. 3); and a second diffusion wheel (102) that comprises a diffusion region (118) that provides a degree of diffusion approximately equal to the lowest degree of diffusion provided by the progressive diffusion region (“light frost” as outlined in the citation above), wherein the diffusion wheel subsystem is configured to be in a retracted configuration in which the first and second diffusion wheels are positioned out of the emitted light beam (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the diffusion wheel subsystem is configured to be in an initial configuration in which the area that provides the lowest degree of diffusion of the first diffusion wheel and the diffusion region of the second diffusion wheel are positioned in the emitted light beam (as shown in Fig. 8), and wherein the first diffusion wheel is configured to rotate from the initial position to provide a progressively-increasing amount of diffusion to the emitted light beam (as shown in Figs. 9-10).
Kessler does not explicitly teach that said first diffusion wheel comprises a progressive diffusion region that provides a progressive range of diffusion.
Benner Jr. teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-8) a diffusion wheel (18) comprising at least one progressive diffusion region (as shown in Figs. 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kessler and incorporated the teachings of said diffusion wheel comprises at least one progressive diffusion region, such as taught or suggested by Benner, Jr., since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the performance, utility, and/or marketability of the device (i.e., by providing a diffusion wheel with variable diffusion to suit additional applications requiring a diffused light beam).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, none of the above-cited prior art references teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the collective limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are allowable as they depend upon and further limit allowable claims 1 and 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875