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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Examiner generally notes that Applicant appears to be combining different embodiments set forth in the disclosure as originally filed. The “cluster of lighting units” recited in lines 2-20 appears directed towards the cluster of lighting units 104 in Figures 1-2B (particularly Figures 2a-2b), whereas the cluster of lighting units recited in lines 21-31 as comprising “a first set of peripheral lighting units and a second set of peripheral lighting units arranged along the opposite peripheral sides of the cluster” appears to be directed to the embodiments of Figures 8-9 although it is unclear (original claims 6 and 8, now canceled, referred to “a first set of peripheral lighting units (204)” and “a second set of peripheral lighting units (206)”; Examiner notes there is no reference numeral 206 in the drawings). Examiner notes that Figures 2a-2b appear to illustrate a first set of peripheral lighting units (for example 106,112) and a second set of peripheral lighting units (108,110) arranged along the opposite peripheral sides of the cluster, but it does not appear that Applicant is directing the “first set” and “second set” of lighting units to the embodiment of Figures 2a-2b, but rather to the embodiments of Figures 8-9. Examiner respectfully asks Applicant to indicate which embodiment claim 1 is directed toward and whether the different embodiments can be combined.
Moreover, in lines 24-25 (which again Examiner believes is directed towards the embodiments of Figures 8-9), Applicant recites that each peripheral lighting unit of the first and second set comprises “a respective lens”. However, in lines 2-3, Applicant already recited that each lighting unit comprises a respective LED-based light source “and a respective lens”. Is the “respective lens” in lines 24-25 the same lens as the “respective lens” recited in lines 2-3? Or is it an additional, second lens covering the “respective lens” recited in lines 2-3? It is unclear to Examiner if the lenses 202,204 in Figures 8-9 are combined with and cover the smaller lenses of the cluster 104 in Figs.2a-2b, or if they are a completely separate lens and embodiment that cover an individual LED based light source 1101. Examiner respectfully asks Applicant to clarify and/or amend accordingly.
Finally, in lines 28-31, Applicant again appears to be directing the claim towards the embodiment of Figures 8-9 but it is unclear what is the “sub-cluster of lighting units”, each comprising “an LED-based light source arranged in front of a symmetric lens”. First, again, is this “LED-based light source” different from the “LED-based light source” recited in line 3? And how is the LED-based light source arranged “in front” of a symmetric lens? Did Applicant intend to recited that the LED-based light source is “behind” the symmetric lens, or recite that the symmetric lens is “in front of” the “LED-based light source”? Moreover, is the “symmetric lens” recited in line 29 different than the “respective lens” recited in line 3 (and again in lines 24-25), or the same lens? Finally, and most importantly, in lines 29-31, Applicant recites that “a spacing between the lens of a peripheral lighting unit and a neighboring symmetric lens of the sub cluster is less than a spacing between neighboring symmetric lenses of the sub-cluster”. This “spacing” appears to be illustrated by the reference letter “d” in Figures 8-9. However, it is unclear what all the various lenses are as recited in lines 29-31. What is the lens of “a peripheral lighting unit”? What is the lens of “a neighboring symmetric lens” of the subcluster? What is the spacing between “neighboring symmetric lenses” of the sub-cluster? Examiner does not understand what lenses Applicant is referring to, and does not understand what spacing between these lenses Applicant is referring to. Again, the problem appears to be that Applicant is combining the embodiments of Figures 1-2b with the embodiments of Figures 8-9 and does not make clear what the “respective lenses”, “symmetric lenses” and “neighboring lenses”, “clusters” and “sub-clusters” are and whether the limitations/features can be combined into a single invention/claim. Examiner respectfully asks Applicant to explain with reference to the disclosure as originally filed exactly what are the clusters/subclusters of lighting units and what are the various lenses recited in claim 1 and how are they arranged/utilized, or otherwise the amend the claim accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, Examiner submits that the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 2-5, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under this provision at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST.
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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights