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 § 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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0327696, hereafter referred to as ‘Lee.’ Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a lighting device (100, 200, figures 1-3) comprising a diffusion plate (120, 220) including one main surface (see figures 2-3, left side of plate 120, 220), the other main surface on an opposite side of the one main surface (see figures 2-3, right side of plate 120, 220), and an end surface (see end surface where light rays exit in figures 2-3) between the one main surface and the other main surface, the diffusion plate containing a diffuser (121 & 122) for scattering light; and at least one light source 113 disposed on the one main surface side (figures 2-3), wherein the end surface emits light by light from the light source entering the diffusion plate through the one main surface, being scattered by the diffuser, and exiting from the end surface (para. #’s 36-44 and figures 2-3).
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0089093, hereafter referred to as ‘Miller.’ Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a lighting device 1 (figures 1-10) comprising a diffusion plate 86 including one main surface (at interface 15, see fig. 9), the other main surface (at interface 25, see fig. 9) on an opposite side of the one main surface, and an end surface (end surfaces on right and left side where shield 55 is located in fig. 9) between the one main surface and the other main surface, the diffusion plate containing a diffuser 115 for scattering light; and at least one light source 35 disposed on the one main surface side, wherein the end surface emits light by light from the light source entering the diffusion plate through the one main surface, being scattered by the diffuser, and exiting from the end surface (see figure 9 and para. #’s 35-36).
Regarding claim 2, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 1. Miller further teaches a first reflecting surface disposed on the other main surface side (light is reflected at the main surface of the plate 120, 220 and the interface surface 25, para. #’s 35-36) and configured to reflect light from the light source that has transmitted through the diffusion plate (fig. 9), wherein the end surface emits light by light from the light source 35 entering the diffusion plate through the one main surface and being scattered by the diffuser (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9) and by reflected light from the first reflecting surface entering the diffusion plate through the other main surface and being scattered by the diffuser, and exiting from the end surface (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 2. Miller further teaches the lighting device according to claim 2, further comprising a second reflecting surface disposed on the one main surface side (light is reflected at the main surface of the plate 120, 220 and the interface surface 15, para. #’s 35-36) and configured to reflect light from the light source 35 (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9), wherein the end surface emits light by light from the light source entering the diffusion plate through the one main surface and being scattered by the diffuser (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9), by reflected light from the first reflecting surface entering the diffusion plate through the other main surface and being scattered by the diffuser (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9), and by reflected light from the second reflecting surface entering the diffusion plate through the one main surface and being scattered by the diffuser, and exiting from the end surface (para. #’s 35-36, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 1. Miller further teaches a light-shielding member 55 that surrounds at least a part of the end surface in a front view (see fig. 9 and para. #’s 35-36).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Regarding claims 2-3, Lee teaches the lighting device of claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach that the diffusing plate has a first reflecting surface disposed on the other main surface side and configured to reflect light from the light source that has transmitted to the diffusion plate and exiting the output end surface and a second reflecting surface disposed on the one main surface side and configured to reflect light from the light source that has transmitted to the diffusion plate and exiting the output end surface.
Lee teaches that the diffusion plate (120, 220) has a first main surface and an opposing second main surface for efficiently guiding the light to the diffusion plate’s output end based on the lower refractive index of the diffuser plate (para. #’s 41-44). Lee teaches it is advantageous to guide as much light as possible so that an observer cannot perceive the gaps between the light panels and to minimize light loss. Lee further teaches a reflective film 223 at an opposite end from the output end.
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 Lee so that the diffusion plate includes a first reflecting main surface and the second reflecting main surface in order to obtain the predictable results of efficiently guiding the light to the diffuser plate’s output end while minimizing light loss.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the lighting device of claim 3 as applied in the 103 rejection above. Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are each made of a highly reflective member.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to make the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface highly reflective in order to obtain the predictable results of efficiently guiding the light to the diffuser plate’s output end while minimizing light loss.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the lighting device of claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach that the light source is disposed at a position where light within a half-value angle with respect to an optical axis of the light source does not directly exit from the end surface.
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 Lee so that the light source is disposed at a position where light within a half-value angle with respect to an optical axis of the light source does not directly exit from the end surface in order to obtain the predictable results of getting the optimum light source position through routine experimentation in order to efficiently output uniform light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Lee.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the lighting device of claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach that the light source is a film light source including an elongated film having flexibility and extending in a longitudinal direction and at least one semiconductor light-emitting element fixed to at least a surface of the film.
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 Lee so that the light source is a film light source including an elongated film having flexibility and extending in a longitudinal direction and at least one semiconductor light-emitting element fixed to at least a surface of the film in order to obtain the predictable results of using the optimum type of light source through routine experimentation based on manufacturing factors such as cost, size, weight, efficiency, durability, longevity, etc. in order to efficiently output light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Lee.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the lighting device of claim 7 as applied in 103 rejection above. Lee teaches a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements having different emission colors (para. #44) from each other, and the semiconductor light-emitting elements are arranged in the longitudinal direction (figures 1-3).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the semiconductor light-emitting element of claim 7 is a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements having different emission colors from each other, and the semiconductor light-emitting elements are arranged in the longitudinal direction.
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 Lee so that the semiconductor light-emitting elements are a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements having different emission colors from each other and the semiconductor light-emitting elements are arranged in the longitudinal direction in order to obtain the predictable results of using the optimum type of light source through routine experimentation based on manufacturing factors such as cost, size, weight, efficiency, durability, longevity, etc. in order to efficiently output light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Lee.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller. Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 1. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach that the light source is disposed at a position where light within a half-value angle with respect to an optical axis of the light source does not directly exit from the end surface.
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 Miller so that the light source is disposed at a position where light within a half-value angle with respect to an optical axis of the light source does not directly exit from the end surface in order to obtain the predictable results of getting the optimum light source position through routine experimentation in order to efficiently output light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Miller.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller. Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 1. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach that the light source is a film light source including an elongated film having flexibility and extending in a longitudinal direction and at least one semiconductor light-emitting element fixed to at least a surface of the film.
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 Miller so that the light source is a film light source including an elongated film having flexibility and extending in a longitudinal direction and at least one semiconductor light-emitting element fixed to at least a surface of the film in order to obtain the predictable results of using the optimum type of light source through routine experimentation based on manufacturing factors such as cost, size, weight, efficiency, durability, longevity, etc. in order to efficiently output light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Miller.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller. Regarding claim 8, Miller teaches the lighting device of claim 7 as applied in 103 rejection above. However, Miller fails to explicitly teach wherein the semiconductor light-emitting elements are a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements having different emission colors from each other, and the semiconductor light-emitting elements are arranged in the longitudinal direction.
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 Miller so that the semiconductor light-emitting elements are a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements having different emission colors from each other and the semiconductor light-emitting elements are arranged in the longitudinal direction in order to obtain the predictable results of using the optimum type of light source through routine experimentation based on manufacturing factors such as cost, size, weight, efficiency, durability, longevity, etc. in order to efficiently output light from an end surface of the diffusion plate of Miller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ranney and Siroki disclose lighting devices with diffusing plates 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
Prosecution Insights