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
The preliminary amendment filed 11/03/2025 has been entered.
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 3 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.
The use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether both the amplitude and the spacing is smaller than the dimensions of the lenses; or either the amplitude or the spacing is smaller than the dimensions of the lenses.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2010/029507 hereinafter refer as “Tsai”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0321610 hereinafter refer as “Tanaka”).
Regarding claims 1-3. Tsai discloses a lighting arrangement (see Fig. 6B, Para. 0092) for providing downward overhead illumination, comprising: a cup (an outer reflective frame 142, see Figs. 6A and 6B, Para. 0092) comprising a wall (side wall of the outer reflective frame, see Fig. 6B) that defines a light output opening, a plurality of light emitting diode, LED, light sources (220, see Fig. 6B) arranged inside the cup (142), a plurality of lenses (234), each lens being arranged adjacent to a respective LED light source (220) and arranged to direct LED light emitted by respective LED light source (220, see Fig. 6B) through the light output opening of the cup, a lens plate (carrier 210, see Fig. 6B, Para. 0080) on which the plurality of lenses (230) is arranged, a wall (reflective partition plates 146, see Fig. 6B, Para. 0092) arranged to protrude from the lens plate (230) and arranged such that each lens (230) is separated from each other lens (205) by a section of the wall (146), wherein the wall (146) has an optical property that causes a change in the direction of the LED light (206), by reflection, refraction, or scattering.
However, Tsai is silent with respect to the wall (146) has a top side that is provided with a plurality of projections or protrusions; wherein the plurality of projections or protrusions form a serrated profile, as recited in claim 2; the plurality of projections or protrusions provided at the top side of the wall has an amplitude and a spacing, and wherein the amplitude and/or the spacing is smaller than the dimensions of the lenses.
Tanaka teaches an illumination device (1, see Fig. 2, Para. 0023) that includes a cup (an outer partition wall 14, see Figs. 1 and 2, Para. 0025) comprising a wall (side wall of the partition wall, see Fig. 1) that defines a light output opening, a plurality of light emitting diode, LED, light sources (11R, 11B, and 11G, see Fig. 1) arranged inside the cup; a wall (partition wall 12, see Fig. 2, Para. 0026) arranged to protrude from a plate (reflection sheet 16), wherein the wall (146) has an optical property that causes a change in the direction of the LED light (11R, 11B, and 11G), by reflection, refraction, or scattering, and the wall (12) has a top side that is provided with a plurality of projections or protrusions (20, see Figs. 2, 3A-3C, Para. 0025, 0038-0039) to diffuse the light (see Abstract). Tanaka further teaches the plurality of projections or protrusions (20) form a serrated profile (see Figs. 3B and 3C); wherein as shown in Fig. 5A-5C, the plurality of projections or protrusions provided at the top side of the wall (12) has an amplitude and a spacing.
Therefore, in view of Tanaka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s top side of the wall to include a plurality of projections or protrusions to diffuse the light emitted from the LED light source. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to refract the outgoing light and thereby to collimate the light, as taught by Tanaka.
Regarding claim 4. Tsai further discloses each lens (230, see Fig. 6B) protrudes from the lens plate (210) by a lens height (see Fig. 6B), the wall (146) protrudes from the lens plate (210) by a maximum wall height (see Fig. 6B),
However, Tsai is silent with respect to the maximum wall height is smaller than or equal to the lens height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s such that the maximum wall height is less than or equal to the lens height in order to control light reflection between the adjacent lenses, such a modification would have been merely adjustment of a known structural parameter to achieve predictable optical result, 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, lowering the height of the wall to allow light to mix between the tops of adjacent lenses would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 5. Tsai further discloses each lens (230, see Fig. 6B) protrudes from the lens plate (210) by a lens height (see Fig. 6B), the wall (146) protrudes from the lens plate (210) by a maximum wall height (see Fig. 6B), the maximum wall height is greater than or equal to the lens height.
Regarding claim 6. Tsai further discloses the lens plate (210), the plurality of lenses (230) and the wall (146) are one integral unit (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 7. Tsai further discloses the number of LEDs (220, see Fig. 6B) in said plurality of LED light sources is between 2 and 9, the number of lenses (230) in said plurality of lenses is between 2 and 9 the pitch between each LED is 1 to 4 times a width of each LED.
Regarding claim 13. The teachings of Tsai have been discussed above.
However, Tsai is silent with respect to the wall of the cup being white.
Tanaka further teaches the of the cup (14) is made from white polycarbonate (PC) (see Para. 0034) to satisfy a desired reflection coefficient.
Therefore, in view of Tanaka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsai’s wall to be white in order to achieve the desired reflection coefficient, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 14. Tsai further discloses the light output opening (see Figs. 6A and 6B) of the cup has an outline that is in the shape of a polygon.
Regarding claim 15. Tsai further discloses a luminaire (200) comprising a plurality of lighting arrangements (see Figs. 6A and 6B) according to claim 1 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest, including that the at least one lens is configured to direct the LED light according to at least one C-plane intensity profile. As specifically recited in the claims, each C-plane intensity profile comprises a main intensity peak in a first gamma, g, angle interval between g1 and g2, where g2 is greater than g1; each C-plane intensity profile comprises a secondary intensity shoulder or peak, at a lower intensity than the intensity of the main intensity peak, in a second g angle interval between g3 and g4, where g3 is greater than g2, g4 is greater than g3 and g4 is less than or equal to 1800 and as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Tsai does not disclose or suggest a C-plane intensity profile having the claimed main intensity peak within a first g angle interval and the claimed secondary intensity shoulder or peak, within a second g angle interval, the claimed relationship between the respective g angle interval and as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Tsai reference in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caprara et al. (US 2022/0034481) discloses a light emitting device that includes a carrier and a plurality of light sources disposed on the carrier with a partition walls; Song et al. (US 2006/0221612) discloses a light emitting device that includes a light source part and a reflective partition for dividing the light source part into a plurality of areas and reflecting light from the light source part; and Harbers (US 2012/0287624) discloses an illumination module that includes a plurality of LEDs and a sidewall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights