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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussell (2013/0264591) in view of Okazaki et al. (2013/0141892).
With respect to claim 1, Hussell teaches an LED (light emitting diode) filament (Fig. 6) comprising: a base layer (72); two electrodes (82 and 84) disposed on the base layer (Fig. 6); a plurality of first LED chips (40) and connected in series to form a first current branch (Fig. 6 and paragraph 64), two ends of the first current branch connected to the two electrodes respectively (Fig. 6); a plurality of second LED chips (40) disposed on the base layer and connected in series to form a second current branch (Fig. 6 and paragraph 64), two ends of the second current branch connected to the two electrodes respectively (Fig. 6), wherein the first current branch is connected in parallel with the second current branch (paragraph 64); and a covering layer (100, 102, and 110) covering the plurality of first LED chips, circuitry, the plurality of second LED chips and a part of each two electrodes (Fig. 7A).
Hussell does not explicitly teach at least one current-limiting resistor disposed on the base layer (claim 1).
As for claim 1, Okazaki also drawn to LED filaments, teaches at least one current-limiting resistor (paragraph 111) disposed on the base layer (Fig. 3) and connected in series to form a first current branch (paragraph 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the current-limiting resistor of Okazaki in the LED filament of Hussell, in order to adjust the current to the appropriate level for the LEDs (paragraph 111 of Okazaki).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,779 in view of Okazaki et al. (2013/0141892).
With respect to claim 1 of the present application, claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,779 teach all of the claimed elements, except for explicitly teaching at least one current-limiting resistor disposed on the base layer and connected in series to form a first current branch (claim 1). Okazaki also drawn to LED filaments, teaches at least one current-limiting resistor (paragraph 111) disposed on the base layer (Fig. 3) and connected in series to form a first current branch (paragraph 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the current-limiting resistor of Okazaki in the LED filament of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,779, in order to adjust the current to the appropriate level for the LEDs (paragraph 111 of Okazaki).
As for claim 11, claims 1 and 10 and/or claims 12 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,779 teach all of the claimed elements, except for explicitly teaching at least one current-limiting resistor disposed on the base layer and connected in series to form a first current branch (claim 11). Okazaki also drawn to LED filaments, teaches at least one current-limiting resistor (paragraph 111) disposed on the base layer (Fig. 3) and connected in series to form a first current branch (paragraph 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the current-limiting resistor of Okazaki in the LED filament of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,779, in order to adjust the current to the appropriate level for the LEDs (paragraph 111 of Okazaki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein a color temperature of the first current branch is different from a color temperature of the second current branch, along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 2.
As for claims 3-10, these claims depend from claim 2 and therefore contain the same allowable subject matter as claim 2.
With respect to claims 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein a color temperature of the first current branch is different from a color temperature of the second current branch, along with the other limiting elements of claims 11 and 12.
As for claims 13-20, these claims depend from claim 12 and therefore contain the same allowable subject matter as claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yan et al. (11,215,326)
Schlereth et al. (10,969,063)
Tiwari et al. (2019/0139943)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. 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, 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.
/WILLIAM J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights